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/

That's all very well, but what does the lesser spotted willow warbler think.about it?

Of course it isn’t. Naturism isn’t a fetish.

The only difference between naturism and fetishist exhibitionism is the audience. Once you are out of a naturist area and are exposing yourself to non consenting members of the public then you have drifted over into exhibitionism. It’s like Wi spa “don’t look at strangers genitals. It’s rude” argument. Pathetic. The circumstances do matter, context matters, intent matters. Consent matters. It’s barn door obvious that stripping bollock naked in a public place is exhibitionism. Pretending it’s not is how John barrowman got away with it for so long. I’m not lying to my dd that some men are allowed to show her their cock and some aren’t and she better be non-victorian and not rude about all of it because lots of men are massive perverts and it’s well known that rapists often start off as exhibitionists. She is already vulnerable in the woods by virtue of youth, sex and geography without adding #bekind

Technically all areas of England are naturist areas, you just don't know it because naturists try to respect textiles by wearing clothes where society expects them to.

Instead they generally go and walk outdoors in quiet areas.

I think they should always carry something to cover themselves, again as a courtesy, but society should also respect a naturists belief and way of life (eg. not calling it a fetish)

Living a naturist life is no more a fetish that you living a clothed one.

There should be designated areas for sunbathing, swimming etc without clothes. Not vague laws. People with a reasonable bit of research before visiting designated places would not be able to say they were not warned.

The law is a bit more nuanced than some people are suggesting, it can still be an offence if it does cause alarm and distress even if the there is no intent.
"In the absence of any sexual context and in relation to nudity where the person has no intention to cause alarm or distress it will normally be appropriate to take no action unless members of the public were actually caused harassment, alarm or distress (as opposed to considering the likelihood of this)."
www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/nudity-public-guidance-handling-cases-naturism

So you can't necessarily be naked on the high street if you as a matter of fact cause harassment, alarm or distress.

If the naturists are making other people so uncomfortable in the busier areas that people are starting to avoid using them then I think there is a risk their behaviour might cross the line.

I would see that as very different to someone being in the quieter area where naturism is to be expected and someone sees people in the distance. I think it would be quite difficult to argue alarm or distress at that point.

I find this very interesting it is only an offence if the act is intended to cause distress
Due to the society we live in wouldnt nearly all women would be distressed to find themselves confronted by an unknown naked man? Surely these men are aware of that?

Hardly anyone is "distressed" by the sight of an unknown naked woman.

@Badgersdrift

That's all very well, but what does the lesser spotted willow warbler think.about it?

Lesser spotted willy warbler?

For goodness sake don’t go to Thieves Wood

@EmergencyHydrangea

So were they "flaunting" themselves, or were they just going for a walk?

They were “strutting” according to one of the red tops. Just going for a walk in a quiet bit of the forest is my guess.

It's public indecency. Isn't this an offense ?

Royal Society for the protection of bollocks?

@Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons
As you will see from my post the CPS makes it clear that causing harassment, alarm and distress can be an offence even if there is no intent.

@Badgersdrift

That's all very well, but what does the lesser spotted willow warbler think.about it?

Where's the plumage?

So you can be naked in the high street? This is what I don’t understand. I’m genuinely not being an arse but it’s either illegal or it isn’t
Technically, yes you can. To be guilty of the offence of ‘Outraging Public Decency’ you have to be doing something that constitutes lewd, disgusting or obscene actions or displays that may cause offence. Just walking around naked doesn’t necessarily fall within that remit. The ‘public’ part of the offence refers to - two or more people being able to witness the behaviour, whether they did witness or not being irrelevant -. It’s an ill defined law tbh. The naked rambler was mostly arrested and imprisoned on Scotland (their law on it may differ), but he wasn’t usually arrested for ‘outraging pubic decency’ , he was mostly arrested for breaking ASBOs or breaching of the peace. The ASBOs and BOP offences were given because he was asked politely (or ordered by court) to not be naked in public anymore. He kept breaching those orders because his argument was that he wasn’t actually breaking the law by being naked in the first place.

Yes thank you for your clarifying post @ChazsBrilliantAttitude it was a rather unfortunate cross post!

[quote ChazsBrilliantAttitude]@Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons
As you will see from my post the CPS makes it clear that causing harassment, alarm and distress can be an offence even if there is no intent.[/quote]
That’s interesting. Because when I saw them they were walking towards me. They passed me….then turned round and followed me. Quite possibly a coincidence but yes it did cause me alarm/distress. So much so that I walked as quickly as I could, came across two clothed men and told them I was being followed by naked men. The nudists then came round the corner, saw me with the clothed men and walked past me.

Sounds like I could have called the police and maybe if it was to happen again I will. I am a bit fed up of #bekind and just expected to put up with stuff like this and being accused of being a Victorian prude if you’re not ok. Like someone said up thread you should be able to go for a walk without having to see cock.

I’d be very disconcerted if I was walking my dog in woodland and came across naked men. I would avoid any signposted naturist areas.

Many years ago when my sons were young (in their 30’s now) we went to a local country park (no naturist areas advertised) for the day, picnic, walk, den building etc. We came across a naked man sitting in a clearing, I was terrified - mainly at the logistics of moving 5 and 3 year olds, plus baby in pushchair very quickly.

@Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons

I find this very interesting it is only an offence if the act is intended to cause distress Due to the society we live in wouldnt nearly all women would be distressed to find themselves confronted by an unknown naked man? Surely these men are aware of that?

Hardly anyone is "distressed" by the sight of an unknown naked woman.

It's the intent that matters.

I would say that a naturist going for a walk in a quiet spot, where naturism has been a feature for a number of years is not going do with the intent to cause distress, they are intending to go for a walk. They also don't think this activity is going to cause distress to others and they generally don't expect to come across anyone, and when they do they usually cover themselves.

This scenario is different than on a high street for example. Again they may not intent to cause distress, but they are likely to be aware that such actions probably would cause distress. If you are aware that your actions are going to cause distress, and yet you still do them, then it can be argued that there is some intention there.

Naturists don't want to cause alarm and distress, which is why they wear clothes to go to the high street.

@PaperHalo

For goodness sake don’t go to Thieves Wood

Oh dear. Just googled thieves wood and seen police statements about “lewd activity”. 🙈

Naturists don't want to cause alarm and distress, which is why they wear clothes to go to the high street.

Why didn’t the ones I came across have a tshirt or something easily to hand which they could just whip in front of their willies as someone up thread suggested? Not even put it on, just hold it in front of them? That would signal their intent to not upset someone fairly well.

What a load of silly indignant fuss.

We have local areas notorious for dogging where you can’t go or you would certainly see something to make a fuss about. I have no idea why the Police do not act on it. People actually park up blatantly in the lay by they access the area from. Perhaps the Police are doggers themselves?

I somehow managed to survive seeing a stupid man actually masterbaitng whilst asking me the way to Spunk Street as a teenager but similarly there should be more fuss about men playing out their actual sexual fetishes on women.

However a group of people who are just enjoying going without clothes in an area where it is traditional with no sexual fetishising whatsoever? I’m glad the RSPB respects that they are not doing anything wrong.

The famous naturist beach at Studland has had to put up a sign saying no dogging, and the Police responded to complaints by naturists by staging sting operations so clearly there is a wide divide between naturism which isn’t anti social and dogging and flashing which are (but people still get away with)

Are there signs up in the actual area or are you expected to know to look on the website first to know about this?

I think the statement is fair and even-handed but they (the land owners and the naturists themselves) should be doing everything they can to ensure any visitors to these specific areas know what to expect and that the naturists go out of their way to avoid causing any discomfort (including, as the webpage says, bringing something to cover up with and actually doing so when appropriate).

I'm another one who would not be able to see intent in anyone's mind to know whether or not their intentions were benign or not, so I understand the alarm.

@Blossomtoes

Then report it to the police. 🤷‍♀️

But its not illegal to be naked though.

Its illegal to be 'lewd' for lack of a better term but their has to be malice, ill intent or the specific aim to offend in the act of nudity for it to be a police matter basically the law states someone has to deliberately expose themselves to you with the intention of offending (such as someone flashing an unsuspecting bystander).

The simple act of existing in a natural state while minding your own business and keeping to yourself or you own group of likeminded people is not a crime even in public areas.

It's the potential threat, isn't it? Potentially exhibitionists. Potentially looking to abuse. The fact that some men are exhibitionists, abusers, rapists and that it only takes one contact to cause a lot of damage to a woman's life and to her confidence, all that means that naked men should not be outside their designated areas. Women and girls should not have to assess the potential risk from random naked men.

covidcorvid

I've already said that they should have something to cover themselves with, not legally, but to be courteous. BN also state this.