“Naturists: you may know them as harmless skinny-dippers. That’s true, but they also hold some deep and abiding philosophy, ‘Naturist’ is the world-wide term for individuals and families who devote part of their time to being natural in the open expanse of nature, and who adhere to a strict code of conduct. With their quiet live-and-let-live philosophy, Naturists (not to be confused with naturalists) sometimes do themselves a disservice by not speaking out loudly enough for the fine values they share.”

‘But Mike is smuggling moral values into his comment.
First he wants to allow nudity on beaches — To Mike this is morally acceptable.
Then he wants to discriminate against those who “behave badly in public’.

Well of course the law does discriminate against anti-social behaviour. That is what it is designed to do, in order to define the boundaries of behaviour and its effects on other citizens.

The law does not prohibit nakedness, but does prohibit the use of nakedness to threaten or insult another person. That is why nudity in some contexts is considered an offence and in other contexts it is not.

The situation with a beach is that nudists are, through experience, convinced that their way of enjoying the sun, sea, and air is the best, the most practical and most beneficial. Anti-nudity activists on the other hand most likely do not have the benefit of this experience in order to compare the difference between being clothed and unclothed. That is an obvious given – otherwise they would not have their position of dogmatic objection. In simple words, if they tried it they would see that they are making a fuss about nothing.

Nudists simply want to live and let live – to enjoy nature and the beach innocently, peacefully, responsibly, as it should be enjoyed, without wanting to foist their own beliefs onto others. – In other words, - they do not want to try to force others to shed their clothing. Contrast that with the anti-nudity campaigners, who are the opposite of that – they do want to force their ignorant beliefs onto others. Yes, ignorant – remember they most likely have not tried being nude on a beach. Nudists on the other hand have, without exception, tried wearing clothing on beaches and of course would put clothes on or keep them on if the weather is unsuitable to be undressed. After all, they arrive wearing clothes and they leave wearing clothes.

As to the suggestion in several postings that nudists should have to join private clubs, I would respond why don’t objectors stay in the cities, townships and their high temples of consumerism- the malls, and leave the beaches to be enjoyed by nudists?

To respond to Rob’s comments about whether I am conditioned, of course I am. In fact all of us are conditioned – by life, comprised of personal experiences, people around us, upbringing, education, media etc, etc. The reason I said that the objectors are conditioned is that people are not born with an instinct to regard their bodies as obscene or disgusting. Babies and young children delight in being without clothes – why shouldn’t they? it is the most natural state. It is conditioning by parents and society, driven by powerful religions and corporate vested interests that creates the view of body shame and guilt, which in extreme circumstances creates dysfunctional people, a dysfunctional society and all the ensuing problems. To see the ultimate effects of this, just look at Islamic societies, their morals, customs and practices. Islam is the world’s ultimate anti-nudity society.

Nudists are people who have broken free from the mind-prison and have risen above it to a state more close to the original Eden-like condition before the serpent worked its evil. It is ironic that the ‘clothe-the-naked’ missionaries went out to do the serpent’s work, not God’s work, by seeking out Eden-like isolated societies with their naked and shameless people and instilling their perverted morality onto innocent people. Since babies, young children and all other creatures do not see shame in nudity – then it must mean that it is the shame culture that is the perversion. It is gratifying that the SPCS recognises the simple truth of all this in its objects, in particular: -

2. The objects for which the Society is established are: -

(a) To encourage self-respect and the dignity of the human person, made in the image of God.

(b) To promote recognition of the sanctity of human life and its preservation in all stages.

Male homosexuals make up about 2% of the population yet account for about 80% HIV infections acquired in NZ. Hague and his mates lie about the effectiveness of condoms. His lies are killing innocent people.

The fact that under MMP we get MPs like Hague is a very good reason to change the system of voting.

To contend that a person’s argument or viewpoint “involves a degree of self-deception and naivety as well as ignorance” (comment by SPCS) is a claim that has been backed up with reasoned argument and facts - sadly, unlike your approach Joyce.

It was the little boy in the famous children’s story by Hans Christian Andersen “The Emperor’s New Clothes” who pointed out the obvious to a deluded ‘NUDIST’ King who stood before his subjects naked and convinced that he was wearing a lavish, newly-tailored suit. The wee boy in the crowd of ‘dazzled’ onlookers did not need to convince them of the facts: it was OBVIOUS for all to see! Yes the KIng was naive and ignorant and the victm of his own self-deception - a product of pride and self-aggrandizement etc.

The case can be well argued: Nudists like Mike, who argue that they have a right to expose their private parts publicly on popular public beaches and have a Kapiti Coast District Council Bylaw supporting such “indecent exposure”, are advancing a viewpoint that is based on “confused”, “naive” thinking that demonstrates a level of ignorance of the law (e.g. see s. 27 of the Summary Offences Act dealing with “indecent exposure”).

To argue against the pro-nudist lobbyists like Mike in the manner recorded in previous comments by SPCS et al. is not to abuse him, but rather to honour him by engaging in robust, reasoned debate addressing his arguments.

What is truly sad is to see the reaction of nudists, who like the Emperor, writhe with discomfort when they recognise the stupidity of their own position, but for them the show must go on….. their opponents are just written off as indulging in “personal attack”…..

Joyce here’s the pertinent pasage from Hand Christian Andersen……….

“But he has got nothing on,” said the little child.

“Oh listen to the innocent,” said its father. And one person whispered to the other what the child had said, “He has nothing on - a child says he has nothing on!”

“But he has nothing on!” at last cried al the people.

The Emperor writhed, for he knew it was true. But he thought, “The procession must go on now.” So HE HELD HIMSELF STIFFER THAN EVER, and the chamberlains held up the invisible train”.

Haughtiness is a form of mental stiffness .. a disease of the mind.

Some, like gay lobbyist Craig Young, stridently assert that Kapiti Coast’s Peka Peka Beach is an unofficial nude beach for gay males to use as a pick-up cruise zone….. is this a position Joyce Fleming and Mike Ward endorse?

“…. BJ please understand that nudity is NOT A BEHAVIOUR it is a STATE OF BEING. All the other activities you mention [urination, defecation and vomiting] are behaviours and in public of course are objectionable to others.”

[ BJ wrote: "Out of convention, dignity, respect and in the interest of furthering sociability with our fellow men and women we do not urinate, excrete [defecate] or vomit publically. For the same reason nor should we with nudity.”]

Mike you are clearly confused.

Men urinating in a public place such as a urinal is not “objectional” to other men present. It is the context of the behaviour as BJ points out that is all important and the law recognises this. Urination or defecation by an individual(s) in any public place open to view and not designated as a public facility for such purposes - when they know they could be viewed by a person(s) who may not wish to be exposed to the sight of private ablutions - is an offence under the law, and can lead to a conviction if a complaint is laid by a person offended. The context of the behaviour is critical.

Vomiting is not a pleasant sight but it is not “objectionable” in the technical sense (such as a publication promoting paedophilia), nor in every context. It only constitutes an offence under the law in the context of offensive and/or disorderly behaviour under s. 4(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981.

Large numbers of university students regularly indulge in pub crawls, drinking binges and other social highlights that involve vomiting as a form of bravado ‘entertainment’. Vomiting while not generally considered a controlled behaviour like laughing noisily, is more like a state of being brought about by a set of circumstances involving excess in drinking, eating etc. It is generally an involuntary activity caused by a certain state of being (sickness etc). Reality TV shows feature such activities with graphic depictions of gross behaviour.

Men or women who present themselves in a state of undress (nude) in a public changing shed, public changing shed shower, designated nude sauna, private hot pool, engage in activity that cannot be defined as “objectionable” provided they are courteous, respectful of others while nude.

Nudity per se is never offensive, objectionable or against the law when it involves consenting adults - eg. private love making between heterosexual couples, nudist clubs set aside for such a purpose, discrete activity that does not involve the exposure of a person’s private parts to unsuspecting members of the public in a way that causes offence.

Mike Ward tries to make a big deal out of the claim that nudity is not a behaviour but rather “a state of being”. This involves a degree of self-deception and naivety as well as ignorance.

Ward’s argument is a feeble attempt to win over the simple-minded to his view of nudity being only a “state of being” rather than involving a ‘behaviour”. Then, once this proposition is accepted, he claims, nudists on public beaches, in full view of non-nudists on the beach, cannot be prosecuted under s. 4(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 for “offensive or disruptive behaviour” because nudity isn’t even a behaviour.

What a nonsense.

Behaviour is a noun and is defined as “way of behaving.” (Longmans Dictionary) or “manner of behaving” (Collins Dictionary)

Behave is defined as: 1. to act, bear oneself. 2 To bear (oneself) in a socially acceptable or polite way 3 To act in a particular way. (Longmans)

To bear oneself in public without clothes involves a conscious act, a degree of motivation and a consciousness to some degree of the impact of one’s state of undress on others. For an MP to turn up in the debating chamber of Parliament naked would be unacceptable behaviour and socially irresponsible. Green MPs might consider it a great strategy for highlighling the immorality of green house gas emissions, promoting the so-called moral superiority of breast-feeding over bottle feeding, or highlight the dangers of bad diet by displaying their struggles with obesity and flatulence; however nudity is not merely a “state of being” when put into a human social context.

For a tiny lobby group, consisting of “nudist” Gerry Foxley of Waikanae (featured on National TV) and his male friend, to advocate nudity on the Kapiti Coast beaches as something the District Council must favour by implementing by-laws protecting their “state of being” is ludicrous! What about those who enjoy being lonely, depressed, “high”, sexually aroused etc. Are these not all “states of being” too? Do we need lobby groups advocating all these “states of being” to make submissions to Council advocating by-laws safeguarding their “states of being” - interests?

Of course the advocating of nudity on Kapiti beaches as a healthy activity involves the advocasy of certain way of bearing oneself socially - the recognition of such nudity as a socially acceptable form of activity (behaviour).

The problen is that those pushing for such a nudist friendly Kapiti Beach zone(s) ignore the very real impact of s. 27 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 (Indecent Exposure) on persons engaging in such behaviour in a public place. This point is covered in detail in the Society’s submisson to Council on the Proposed Draft Beach By-law 2008.

But Mike is smuggling moral values into his comment.

First he wants to allow nudity on beaches — To Mike this is morally acceptable.

Then he wants to discriminate against those who “behave badly in public”.

But to what common moral law is Mike appealing in each of these cases? His own? In which case, who cares what Mike thinks? Anti-nudity-on-beaches believers opinion’s are just as valid as his or any other.

Mike also talks about “conditioning”:

“This is because of their conditioning, which equates nudity and the human body as sinful and shameful…”

But again Mike does not shine the light on his own presuppositions. How Mike, do you know, that you are not the one who has been “conditioned”?