AIBU to think neighbours should not be naked in their garden?

It’s always a balance of competing rights and interests.

The fact is that the incidents you mention are memorable because they are rare. It isn’t common to see people wandering around in the nude in public in the UK (we don’t have the weather for it, for one thing! This week excepted), It is outside of the norm.

Nobody is saying it’s not ok to go to nudist clubs where everyone is like-minded. Can you really not understand why some of us are uneasy about public nudity being normalised?

If the Overton window were to be successfully shifted in this way, apart from nudists, who benefits from this pushing of boundaries? And who might be made more vulnerable?

It is interesting to see authoritarian people coming out and telling people how to live.
Walking down the road is not illegal.
A man walked round England in the nude and he was not arrested.
It is only illegal if you cause distress or alarm.
So if you do it to cause nuisance but minding your own business in your back garden is not that.
The authoritarian people I seriously wonder about their morals.
it is always the moral majority types who are found in brothels or even worse.
In life we need to be more concerned with ourselves rather than pontificating about others.

In these tense times the more we have balance in your viewpoints the better.

This thread has taken an incredibly disturbing turn IMO.

The insistence by some that people should just have the right to be naked and that nobody is allowed to be offended by that points to a far more sinister type of thinking on their part.

When arguments are made for e.g. not having mixed sex spaces, part of that argument surrounds the fact that for many victims and survivors of sexual abuse, the sight of a naked body is traumatic. Why should anyone have to tolerate that when nudity is sexual, whether you like it or not.

Insisting on being naked when you know that there are people who find it offensive and disturbing is a power play. It has nothing to do with freedom, it’s all about power, and the sick thrill you get from knowing that people, including SA survivors and small children are seeing you naked.

You do have the right to be naked, in your own home, in your own space. Not being naked in public does not harm you. Others having to see you naked though absolutely can harm them.

That's classy

I answer all your points calmly and fully, including citing the relevant legislation.

And you want to take this conversation (naked people in a private garden) and equate it to sexual abuse?

You take one sentence and ignore any of the other points - ROFLMAO.

DARVO is usually a tactic of men who gaslight women - enough said.

I rather think you have missed the point. If out of seven gardens you look in, at any time one of those seven may contain a naked person then I think it’s fair to suggest that this IS in fact a “cultural norm”, albeit not your particular norm.

“the hysterical reaction to nudity amazes me“

You’re amazed? You’re amazed that a sexual abuse victim being unwillingly exposed to a man’s penis could become “hysterical”? You’re amazed that I wouldn’t want my 4 year old daughter to see our neighbours naked during a time in her own development where we’re trying to teach her appropriate physical boundaries and which body parts are private? You’re amazed that some people just simply don’t feel comfortable seeing strangers naked despite the fact that seeing strangers naked is a total cultural abnormality for most people?!

Wow, that's quite the diatribe. People who don't want to have to see other people's naked bits really rile you, don't they?

Well obviously you don't. Since it highlights the fallacy in your thinking.
There's no fallacy in my thinking, but thanks for your concern. You seem to be working yourself up into quite the froth here just because not everyone agrees with you, and I find it amusing that you're accusing others on the thread of fascism when you're literally trying to browbeat others into agreeing with you.

What percentage of (actual) crimes against children have been performed by people who were naked in public?

And ironically, given that you were trying to accuse me of flawed thinking 😂you have completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't suggesting people who are naked in public commit crimes against children ffs. I was suggesting that if children are allowed to run around naked they are at risk from paedos. Hope that clears up the confusion.

I won't be wasting any more time on your posts given your apparent utter incomprehension to consider points of view other than your own. If you want to walk around naked, move to Cap d'Agde or join a nudist colony or something (or even just draw the sodding curtains), and while you're at it learn to accept that sometimes in life you're going to be in the minority with your opinions. Oh, and if you have children and they don't want to be naked around you or vice versa, I hope to God you don't bully and browbeat them like you have attempted to do to people on this thread.

That’s true. Sure why don’t you pop to Tesco naked and test your theory? If 1 in 7 people are naturists and there are at least 14 people in your local Tesco you can reasonably expect to see another naked person besides yourself. Let us know how you get on.

Right now of course there's not much crimes committed against kids by naked adults because being naked in public isn't normalised outside of naturist places! You don't think it wouldn't cause issues if you normalised nudity everywhere and insisted on making kids get naked and be around naked adults! You don't think n--ces wouldn't enjoy that and take advantage of that! What if the neighbours naked mate was looking up at your little girl in her bedroom and rubbing himself off! You need your hard drive checking! You want kids to be naked and more easily photographed by other bakes adults?

I don't think that's a useful comparison at all.
Well obviously you don't. Since it highlights the fallacy in your thinking.

Not remotely the same thing.
It's not enough to just assert that. It's exactly the same thing - hiding people away because you don't want to look at them or acknowledge their existence except in their own hidden space.

And even if it was, I could just as well argue that it 'borders on fascist' to suggest we should let everyone start walking around stark naked, particularly if you're advocating for it among children too.
Note your use of the word let. Not the word force.
You would force people to do as you want, not permit them to make their own personal choice.

Fascism: prioritizes unity of the nation or race over individual liberties. Typically using centralised control to achieve total societal compliance

We all know there are bad people out there.
And your point is - other than "will nobody think of the children"?

What percentage of (actual) crimes against children have been performed by people who were naked in public?

But aside from that, those who just don't want to be confronted with strangers' exposed genitals while going about our day are entitled to have that respected and are, I believe, still in the majority in this country.
No - just no. You say "entitled" and that's exactly what your stance is. I'd like not to have to be confronted by people with body odour - but, guess what, I don't get to dictate their bathroom routines. Your entitlement never trumps others liberties. Beware, for someday you'll find other people want to stop you doing things you find perfectly reasonable.

Oh - and the only time the majority matters is in a vote, or when you get pitchforks out.

If people want to walk around naked there are plenty of places they can do that.
Yes - they can do it in their home. They can do it in public as well.
Why won't you accept that?
Why do you think your personal preferences should override the law?

Most people don't.
And they don't have to. That's how libertarianism works.
Most people also don't play pool, poker, etc ... should we stop the people that do?

The ‘naturist places’ that you allude to are also family places. There is no reason to shield children from simple nudity. Much better they grow up with the understanding of what real human bodies look like in all their shapes, sizes and colours, rather than having to form their impressions from unrealistic and airbrushed imagery in magazines and videos etc.

I don't think that's a useful comparison at all.
Well obviously you don't. Since it highlights the fallacy in your thinking.

Not remotely the same thing.
It's not enough to just assert that. It's exactly the same thing - hiding people away because you don't want to look at them or acknowledge their existence except in their own hidden space.

And even if it was, I could just as well argue that it 'borders on fascist' to suggest we should let everyone start walking around stark naked, particularly if you're advocating for it among children too.
Note your use of the word let. Not the word force.
You would force people to do as you want, not permit them to make their own personal choice.

Fascism: prioritizes unity of the nation or race over individual liberties. Typically using centralised control to achieve total societal compliance

We all know there are bad people out there.
And your point is - other than "will nobody think of the children"?

What percentage of (actual) crimes against children have been performed by people who were naked in public?

But aside from that, those who just don't want to be confronted with strangers' exposed genitals while going about our day are entitled to have that respected and are, I believe, still in the majority in this country.
No - just no. You say "entitled" and that's exactly what your stance is. I'd like not to have to be confronted by people with body odour - but, guess what, I don't get to dictate their bathroom routines. Your entitlement never trumps others liberties. Beware, for someday you'll find other people want to stop you doing things you find perfectly reasonable.

Oh - and the only time the majority matters is in a vote, or when you get pitchforks out.

If people want to walk around naked there are plenty of places they can do that.
Yes - they can do it in their home. They can do it in public as well.
Why won't you accept that?
Why do you think your personal preferences should override the law?

Most people don't.
And they don't have to. That's how libertarianism works.
Most people also don't play pool, poker, etc ... should we stop the people that do?

Where does this kind of thinking end? In a successful society personal freedoms need to be balanced with consideration for others.

I agree totally.
But to your question... ultimately the thinking ends with the law (as amended from time to time) because we all have different opinions. The law arbitrates between the differing freedoms that people need.

My kids love to play in the garden and would happily be outside at 6am on a weekend having the time of their lives - loudly. This wouldn’t be a crime.

There are laws on noise (EPA 1990 and the Noise Act 1996). The Noise Act restricts noise between 11pm and 7am to 34dBA which is actually very quiet. So, sorry, your children would actually be breaking the law at 6am. Or rather you would be for allowing them to.

It’s their garden. It’s our private space. Technically they have every “right” to play in their own garden.
They do - but they can't keep punting balls over the fence, nor entering your neighbours property to retrieve them. But they have an absolute right to scream and shout as children do. Others might hate it, but I can't see people here wanting to ban that activity because they're "entitled to peace and quiet"

But what kind of parent would I be if I didn’t teach them that we live as part of a community?
You'd be a bad parent, and I'm sure you're not. And it's admirable that you're bringing up thoughtful children.

But OP's neighbours could be loud and obnoxious all day - swearing and having barbecues. People would mostly be saying you have bad neighbours and just have to move, not change the law.

I'm not saying that the current situation doesn't present OP with an issue to manage (communicating with children for instance). But the hysterical reaction to nudity amazes me. These people apparently have fences etc and can only be seen from upstairs windows. I'm sure the novelty will wear off quickly and the children/family will just find an amusing label for them.

Where does this kind of thinking end? In a successful society personal freedoms need to be balanced with consideration for others. My kids love to play in the garden and would happily be outside at 6am on a weekend having the time of their lives - loudly. This wouldn’t be a crime. It’s their garden. It’s our private space. Technically they have every “right” to play in their own garden. But what kind of parent would I be if I didn’t teach them that we live as part of a community? We have neighbours who probably don’t want to listen to them playing outside at 6am on a Saturday and we need to be considerate of those around us. Not because it’s a legal mandate but because it’s basic consideration for others and we should be mindful of what might bother or upset others.
It’s the same principle - how can a grown ass adult not understand that even though they have the right to be naked in their own garden, if it’s directly overlooked by their neighbours they should be considerate of the fact their neighbours might not want to see them naked. Particularly if there are kids in the house?! If you want to be naked in your garden buy a house where you’re not so obviously exposed and overlooked. Same way that if I wanted to be able to let my kids scream at 6am in the garden I should have bought a house where we weren’t overheard.

For context: Our house is on a new build estate and the houses are pretty close together. It’s fairly easy to see into neighbours gardens because the trees etc are not well established yet.

AIBU to say my neighbours shouldn’t be naked in their garden. They are often out in the garden totally naked taking photos of themselves. They have parties quite often and it’s not uncommon for them and friends to be out in the garden naked / using the hot tub etc.

Am I being a killjoy ? Seems excessive to me.

I don't think that's a useful comparison at all.
Well obviously you don't. Since it highlights the fallacy in your thinking.

Not remotely the same thing.
It's not enough to just assert that. It's exactly the same thing - hiding people away because you don't want to look at them or acknowledge their existence except in their own hidden space.

And even if it was, I could just as well argue that it 'borders on fascist' to suggest we should let everyone start walking around stark naked, particularly if you're advocating for it among children too.
Note your use of the word let. Not the word force.
You would force people to do as you want, not permit them to make their own personal choice.

Fascism: prioritizes unity of the nation or race over individual liberties. Typically using centralised control to achieve total societal compliance

We all know there are bad people out there.
And your point is - other than "will nobody think of the children"?

What percentage of (actual) crimes against children have been performed by people who were naked in public?

But aside from that, those who just don't want to be confronted with strangers' exposed genitals while going about our day are entitled to have that respected and are, I believe, still in the majority in this country.
No - just no. You say "entitled" and that's exactly what your stance is. I'd like not to have to be confronted by people with body odour - but, guess what, I don't get to dictate their bathroom routines. Your entitlement never trumps others liberties. Beware, for someday you'll find other people want to stop you doing things you find perfectly reasonable.

Oh - and the only time the majority matters is in a vote, or when you get pitchforks out.

If people want to walk around naked there are plenty of places they can do that.
Yes - they can do it in their home. They can do it in public as well.
Why won't you accept that?
Why do you think your personal preferences should override the law?

Most people don't.
And they don't have to. That's how libertarianism works.
Most people also don't play pool, poker, etc ... should we stop the people that do?

According to recent extensive research by IPSOS, some 6.75 million people in the UK identify as naturists or nudists. That’s 1 in 7 people. So naturism isn’t some “fringe sub-culture”. It’s mainstream and perfectly normal. It would seem your sweeping generalisations about “UK culture” are somewhat erroneous wouldn’t it?