Naked man in communal showers. Totally stark bollock naked.

[tardisgirl68]

Not an AIBU cos really the title says it all. At massive local pool with group of five girls aged 10/11. Luckily they were showering in different area, I was waiting at lockers for them to come back and get changed. Bloke in the shower, nonchalantly steps out of his trunks and made big show of rinsing them out. I did a double take, then the slow burn whilst my brain tried to process what i was seeing . I nabbed a passing lifeguard and said "look!!!!" He was (after getting dressed) frogmarched out and told if he came back in they'd get police involved. Creep. My group of girls saw nothing but that was more luck than anything. shudders

The Naked Rambler would surely say that he did not intend to cause harm or distress?

Well, yes turgid

Surely the test must be whather a reasonable person is likely to feel alarm or distress?

The offence of Exposure is about intention - regardless of the effect, the defendant must intend to cause alarm or distress.

That is why the Naked Rambler isn't arrested for Exposure - he would say he is making a political point/likes being naked or whatever.

Outraging public decency requires an "act so lewd as to outrage public decency" so I suppose that encompasses more of an objective - i.e. what a reasonable person would think - test.

But as this thread shows, what alarms/distresses one person would have no effect on another.

But is Exposure a separate issue from a PO act offence Summer ?

I thought section 5 covers behaviour likely to cause alarm or distress?

Yes - Exposure is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act. To be honest, I don't think the Public Order Act really covers willies out.

There are three main offences (before we get into the realms of affray/riot, where the threat of violence is required).

Section 5 - "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in the hearing/sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress."

Nakedness, unless it is accompanied by other unpleasant behaviour isn't "threatening, abusive or insulting".

If it becomes any of these, things - i.e. a man outside a school showing school children his penis - then it is already covered under Exposure. Plus, section 5 can only be dealt with by way of fine.

Next offence is s4A, which is "intentionally" causing harassment, alarm or distress - again, if you intend to upset someone, you are guilty under exposure.

Last offence is s4, for which there must be a fear or threat of violence.

So in essence, the Public Order Act doesn't go any further than the Exposure legislation. The prosecution would still have to prove beyond doubt that the defendant intended to cause alarm or distress.

Thanks Summer!

That clarifies things a lot!

(Although I'm still amazed that a police officer might nick me for swearing, but I could do the shopping nude)

Yep - although I think that says more about the hideous and complete unjust public order legislation that the nakedness thing.

I have represented perfectly normal women (and men) who have told someone to fuck off in the heat of an argument in a shop. All it takes is a police officer to be nearby and they can end with a criminal record. Entirely unjust.

Incidentally - whilst the law would cover you for being outside, the moment you enter private property (i.e. the shop) they would have every right to remove you for nakedness in the bakery section.

So I would do it on a warm day - chances are you will be spending a lot of time outside!

I think if a naked man was showering next to my 8 year old dd, someone would be arrested under the public order act.

It does seem a tad unfair that it'd be me!

So, a family laying on a quiet beach covered with nothing but sunscreen, as my family have done since before I was born, are committing no offence whatever.

Wouldn't be an issue in Germany, but this is Britain, and so would alarm some people. Common sense from the man would have said it would cause offence.

It is amazing how many people are ignorant of the law, and how many seem to think that being comfortable naked = sexual pervert or at the very least someone trying to get 'thrills'.

I've not had recent experience with council-run pools but I've used several privately run gyms with pools over the past few years, and it is not uncommon for people to strip off in the shower which is why I'm so surprised it caused outrage here. And before anyone suggests it they are not nudist gyms or places where anything dodgy happens.

In unisex showers dotcom? With kids around?

I don't even understand why anyone needs to shower naked after being in the pool! Surely you shower at home before you go, then you're bobbing about in a weak solution of bleach and wee. How can you need to do anything more than wash your hair and rise the chlorine off your body? You don't need to remove a swimming costume for that because they're not waterproof!

FWIW I wouldn't care either way about nude showerers.

Maybe, like so many other things, it's all a question of context?

I don't have any issues around nudity myself, but OH does some supply teaching and uses a gym/leisure centre where he sometimes sees children he's had in class. Therefore he never strips off even in the male changing room, just in case some kid saw him and said at school something along the lines of "I've seen Mr Puzzled naked!!!"

Easy to see how it could happen, and even easier to imagine what could be made of it

We've not, actually, been told whether or not the man was waving his dick at people - just that he took off his trunks. If he was doing this facing the wall, then his motivation wasn't to show anyone his dick, was it?

Also, as to laughing at flashers - I laughed at the first one I saw when I was 10. And the second one, at 11. Though to be fair I think the first one was a streaker, not a flasher and his motivation was fulfilling a dare rather than trying to upset or frighten me.

I do actually think it's quite important both to learn (if you are of the ridiculously prudish and paranoid tendency) and to teach DC that bodies are harmless and that the warning signs someone might be dangerous to you are not necessarily to do with how much they are wearing.
Because, frankly if someone is getting his/her jollies by sunbathing nude but making no attempt to interact with anyone else, it's no one else's business.

And 'Waah, blaaaah, it's AGAINST THE LAW' is a witless sort of objection to make to anything. Lawbreaking is quite often necessary to affect social change. If people hadn't broken laws, we wouldn't have things like votes for women, access to contraception and abortion, employment protection laws. Etc.

We've not, actually, been told whether or not the man was waving his dick at people - just that he took off his trunks. If he was doing this facing the wall, then his motivation wasn't to show anyone his dick, was it?

The impression I got was that the worst he was doing was "nonchalantly stepping out of his trunks making a big show of rinsing them out". I think if he had been doing any dick waving the OP would have been sure to put it in there!

I am actually more conservative when it comes to "flashers" (entirely different to what this bloke is doing) than others here. I think the problem with flashing is that a) it is designed to give someone power over someone else and b)can create a fear that the offender would go on to do more.

So I have no issue with flashing being a criminal offence.

But I agree that hysteria over naked bodies does not keep our kids safer. Unfortunately we need to be more sophisticated than that to spot the danger signs.

Easy to see how it could happen, and even easier to imagine what could be made of it hmm

I agree with this. I actually think it is prudent not to get naked in a communal space (although I will defend someone's right to do it) because of the possible allegations that could follow.

Sadly we all (especially men) have to be very careful in this day and age.

Sadly we all (especially men) have to be very careful in this day and age.

That's exactly why I am very suspicious of a man who is not careful.

I totally agree with Summer that flashing is to do with power, and that is why it isn't a laughing matter.

I object strongly to the assertion that anyone who doesn't want their children to see deliberate adult opposite sex nudity as hysterical.

If my dd's see a mans body while he is changing on the beach attempting to be discreet, it isn't an issue.If they see a man making no attempt at modesty in a communal shower, it us a quite different scenario.It crosses boundaries of how we should be sensitive to others inhibitions and feelings in a shared space.It's thoughtless and selfish, at the expense of others with no necessity.

I want my dd's to know that it is not ok if a man gets naked in front of them and they feel uncomfortable about it.

As I have said before a man in the situation described by the op is also placing himself in a vulnerable position with regard to false allegations, or physical attack by others who are offended or feel threatened.

I agree with SGB that non violent direct action is a good vehicle for social change.But I don't think this individual action would gain much popular support which is vital for change.I would suggest a mass nude protest at a time less likely to put people in a setting where children are present.

Blimey. Right just to clear up a few points raised. It was about 4pm on saturday afternoon. The shower area he was using faces lockers, perpendicular to the pool. He would be visible to pool users in the left hand side of the pool and also a large section of the poolside seats in the seating area to the left. He faced outwards, the "making a big show of rinsing his trunks" was a way of (badly) explaining the way he was, this is hard to describe, rinsing them, then shaking them out, many many times. It was definitely imo, done in a very conspicuous way. Anybody, and there will be several of you, who are familiar with the Commy pool will know that this is not acceptable behaviour.

And just to add, I am neither prudish or paranoid. I've been a nurse for 25 years and seen more genitals than Cynthia Payne. However, I know when.something doesnt sit right, feel "right" to me. This didnt and the staff acted very quickly and were of the same opinion.

I know that any thread will only have the views of people who take the time to post, so they can't provide a reliable indication of what proportion of people might hold any particular view.

But even so, I've been amazed by this thread and by how many people don't mind a naked man showering in a communal shower, potentially alongside children etc. And yet I've seen so many threads where behaviour that I would view as much less, well, strange (eg man sitting on a bench overlooking a play ground) is greeted with utter horror, and a feeling that there can be no possible innocent explanation.

I'm in the 'please cover up' camp and it's just so difficult to explain to the happily naked why I feel the way I do, because I'm immediately labelled hysterical and uptight. But ultimately I would like my daughter to feel that she has the power to decide if or when she sees a naked man for herself, not have it forced on her in public. I find it hard to explain why if she is walking down the street and a man flashes her, that is wrong and violates her, but if a man strips naked in front of her elsewhere, that's fine and she is not allowed to feel violated. I just can't quite match it all up in my head.

I'm in England so we don't have these types of communal showers.

Some pools in England do. Depends where you go.