To think the RSPB shouldn’t say if you don’t want to see naked men stay away from the woods/public footpaths?

[CovidCorvid]

So 2 years ago I visited Sherwood forest and was by myself in the forest when I came across 3 naked men. Which was a little unsettling for a woman by herself. It was in a quieter part of the forest so at that moment nobody else about and I hadn’t seen anyone for a while. On a public footpath.

I spoke to some (clothed) men about it further along the path and they said it’s a common occurrence and that the police are frequently getting called and tell them to get dressed.

It’s in the news currently as larger groups of naked men have been seen again. Seems the main areas they stick to are managed by the RSPB who seem to be encouraging it. The land may be managed by the rspb but they’re public footpaths, not a pay as you enter nature reserve. The bit I actually saw the men in wasn’t the rspb bit but there’s no fence/demarcation between them.

RSPB say if you don’t want to see naked men then stay away! Ffs. Why is it the naked men get to ruin things for other people? The police say it’s illegal if someone is offended. 🤷‍♀️

www.visitsherwood.co.uk/plan-your-visit/naturism-on-rspb-reserves/

I'm a life long naturist and I think this is totally unacceptable. If you want to be naked go to a naturist club or beach.
The subscriptions are very inexpensive.
I would be very uncomfortable confronted by three naked men in the woods when walking on my own, how do I know they are not rapists or perverts, or naturist club rejects, there are a lot of those who have been rejected because they make sexual advances to other members.
I feel very safe in a club, I don't feel safe as a lone woman in the woods confronted by this and I certainly would not want any small children to come across this!!!

Well said Shehasadiamondinthesky.

Bold fail.
I used to work with a male naturist, he was a member of a club, he was the biggest letch I have ever met in my life.

There are quieter areas of RSPB Budby South Forest (the heathland area), which includes Open Access land where naturism may be tolerated, provided certain behaviours are adhered to.

They need to clearly mark this area with a fence or signs etc and then people that don't want to see that can avoid it.

I wouldn't be happy to meet a naked man in a deserted forest.

@Lordamighty

Bold fail. I used to work with a male naturist, he was a member of a club, he was the biggest letch I have ever met in my life.

They must all be like it then. 🙄

Fuck sake, so now according to some here, we should be shaming women for not being 100% comfortable when she runs in to a group of naked men when she’s alone in some woods. 🙄

God forbid anyone ever expect men not to prioritise their penis. And of course, we must all pretend that men are never a threat to women, just women being stupid, dramatic, whiny bitches again…

Emilyontmoor
I can’t believe so many on here have managed to lead such sheltered lives that they can’t appreciate the difference between a sexual predator and a harmless naturist

Yeah, it’s all stupid women’s fault, not being able to tell on sight if a man is a predator or not 🤨

@Naunet

Fuck sake, so now according to some here, we should be shaming women for not being 100% comfortable when she runs in to a group of naked men when she’s alone in some woods. 🙄

God forbid anyone ever expect men not to prioritise their penis. And of course, we must all pretend that men are never a threat to women, just women being stupid, dramatic, whiny bitches again…

.....and Victorian !

Who suggested we should pretend that men are never a threat to women?

@ilovesooty

Who suggested we should pretend that men are never a threat to women?

Right, so you understand that this would be very scary for some women and girls? So should that not be a consideration in at all this?

Nudists in a nudist area in a quiet forest are equally unsurprising.

But they weren't in the nudist area. They were on a footpath in the general forest, outside the nudist area, where they could reasonable expect to encounter other walkers, including families, yet did not even have the courtesy to cover up.

Or does any public space become a nudist area because a naturist - or indeed, any group of men - decides to take his clothes off, and it's our own stupid fault for not anticipating this and avoiding whichever area he chooses to be in?

In a defined, clearly signposted area that other users of the public space can easily avoid: no problem at all. Outside those areas: be cognisant of the fact other people don't necessarily want to be exposed to your genitalia, and cover up.

Naturists are men and women who prefer to be unencumbered by clothes. They are so used to seeing naked bodies of all ages shapes and sizes that nudism is about as unsexy as it's possible to get.

Yes, naturism is a non-sexual social activity. On the whole. It's wrong however to frame any group as safe as if no member of that group would ever be able of transgressing boundaries or committing a crime or joining the group for wholly nefarious reasons in the first place.

Having been dragged to naturist beaches by my parents throughout my childhood, I know from my own experience that the understanding of naturists as purely asexual is not entirely true. It's true for most naturists in most situations. Not all.

What really matters though is that as with all other social groups, they are targeted by predators who seek out any available opportunity to a) access their preferred victims in b) a situation where (some) societal boundaries are crossed as a norm and further boundary violations may not immediately be noticed in c) places or situations where safeguarding is relaxed, especially when the whole group are widely seen as harmless or otherwise above board.

In Germany, where naturism has been very popular for more than 120 years and where it became a mass movement for a time, there were some horrifying reports of abuse in court cases against sexual predators who joined naturist camps in order to sexually abuse. (Children mostly.)

So to believe that naturists are a special group of people who are always safe is naive in the extreme.

The OP clearly describes boundary breaking behaviour:

• a group of males walking naked outside of the clearly designated naturist area
• who turned around to follow the OP, a lone woman walking in a less frequented area
• and turned away only after she appealed for help to other (fully clothed) men.

Anyone who thinks the OP is overreacting by feeling uncomfortable in that situation, does have boundary issues in my view.

@Blossomtoes

I've been sexually assaulted twice, and both of the perpetrators appeared completely harmless

Crucially, for the purposes of this thread, were they naked? Otherwise your experience is entirely irrelevant.

I’m very sorry that happened to you. 💐

God that's cold.

What shreddednips shared is entirely relevant to the thread, even if you cannot understand that.

People are minimising the OP's very understandable reaction of unease and discomfort by claiming that naturists are harmless, that a naked man is more harmless than a fully clothed one anyway, that a naked man is something to snigger at rather than fear. And she's a Victorian prude or any of the other dismissive things thrown her way for not feeling fine with encountering naked blokes alone in the woods.

And shreddednips quite rightly points out that she found out to her detriment that it doesn't matter how harmless someone looks, because looking harmless does not equate to being harmless. Just as people thinking naturists are harmless does not equate to every naturist being harmless.

Your flowers do not in any way make up for dismissing her point in that callous manner.

Sorry, shreddednips for what you went through and for being dismissed like that. I appreciated both the point you made and that you had the courage to share your experience.

They must all be like it then. 🙄

How do we tell the difference @blossomtoes.

CharlieParley

Totally agree, it was a really nasty comment.

It’s also ignorant beyond belief. Many, many women have been sexually abused by men, but it’s “not relevant”. Why should women ever be shown any compassion or consideration?

And as for the idiots who think naturists couldn’t possibly also be predictors - where have you been living? We’re talking about men here. There have been male doctors, priests, police, judges, politicians, charity workers etc that have turned out to be sex offenders, but naturists are different for some unexplained reason?!

Just as people thinking naturists are harmless does not equate to every naturist being harmless

Of course not. Neither does it equate to every naturist being a sexual predator. In fact the vast majority of them are fully clothed.

@Blossomtoes

Just as people thinking naturists are harmless does not equate to every naturist being harmless

Of course not. Neither does it equate to every naturist being a sexual predator. In fact the vast majority of them are fully clothed.

Well seeing as women don’t know which men are and which men aren’t safe, and seeing as many women have suffered sexual abuse at the hands of men, maybe you can understand why a lone woman bumping into a bunch of naked men in the woods could feel intimidated?

And then maybe you can explain why that should be dismissed, belittled and ignored in favour of the penis people being able to do whatever they want with no restrictions.

@Blossomtoes

Just as people thinking naturists are harmless does not equate to every naturist being harmless

Of course not. Neither does it equate to every naturist being a sexual predator. In fact the vast majority of them are fully clothed.

No one on this thread has claimed that all naturists are sexual predators.

The truth is that just as some men are predators and we cannot tell which men purely by seeing them, some male naturists are predators and we cannot tell which purely by seeing them.

We tell from their behaviour when that behaviour crosses boundaries. As it did in the case of the OP.

Do you understand why safeguarding must focus on the exceptions rather than the norm in order to work?

Do you understand that naturist areas are designated in this forest as a type of safeguarding measure (for both naturists and the clothed public) and that moving outside of that area crosses that boundary? And that others not sharing the love for a naturist life can reasonably object to that happening?

And do you understand that the OP objected to the behaviour of these men, because it crossed several boundaries?

I repeat: they were outside the designated area and followed the OP until she asked for help from other men.

Let's not gloss over that behaviour by NAMALTing.

Do you understand that naturist areas are designated in this forest as a type of safeguarding measure (for both naturists and the clothed public) and that moving outside of that area crosses that boundary? And that others not sharing the love for a naturist life can reasonably object to that happening?

No. Any area can be a naturist area. And I don’t see how safeguarding comes into it at all.

And do you understand that the OP objected to the behaviour of these men, because it crossed several boundaries?

No. I still don’t understand, and her posts are inconsistent. Was she alarmed because they were naked, or because they followed her? Why did she not initially mention that they followed her, rather than drip feeding it. I’d be alarmed by being followed, whether the followers were naked or clothed. I’d probably be less alarmed at them being naked.