AIBU to think this is absolutely disgusting and unecessary.

[Gettingbysomehow]

So this happened a few miles away from where I live.
Call me old fashioned but I think this is totally inappropriate and somebody should have called the police.
I have been a naturist for 40 years but the old fashioned kind who doesn't think dangling your genitals in front of families and young children who have gone for a meal is at all appropriate.
I would question why they found the need to do this. There are plenty of naturist clubs in the area.
People go to naturist clubs to get an all over tan and be a member of an organisation that usually has a pool and cheap membership.
My non naturist friends think I'm being stuffy and ridiculous am I?
Diners shocked as naked pair enjoy meal in Burnham-On-Sea pub

the nudity taboo has been gaining influence, particularly where children are concerned

Right. You make it sound like that's a bad thing, I wonder why.

'it's all getting rather tangled' = "I can't actually answer the points being made, so let's start again with the conversation on my terms this time, okay, you silly little wims? "

No, thanks.

Malcolm isn’t satisfied with being nude in his own space or with other nudists. He is keen for more children to be exposed and involved.

And

Malcolm thinks that polls are hard scientific research.

I don't recall writing anything that contradicts that. Perhaps you could point it out.

I really think Malcolm is being disingenuous for effect. Most people are not saying that the idea that naturism can have benefits, for both adults and children, is inherently a dangerous idea. It may be a disputed idea, but most people know that it is an idea that is out there and is held by some people, and that those people who do think that way are not dangerous by virtue of that belief. People who say, for example, that they would never want to be naked in front of strangers themselves, for the most part will nevertheless recognise that it's a valid choice for others. The people on this thread who are raising concerns about children and safeguarding are not saying naturism is dangerous (or even, for the most part, debating whether it can be beneficial) per se.

This couple has done a real disservice to real naturists in my opinion. I reject them as part of my particular community.

No, you are simply wrong, I do not think that. All methods available in psychology, sociology and related disciplines have some shortcomings but that does not invalidate the findings. Polls are a valuable source of data for scientific research, particularly in fields such as social psychology, and hard scientific research based on that poll, which had other questions requested by researchers, is being prepared for publication. I am not, and I am pretty sure British Naturism is not, involved in that in any way.

@MalcolmBoura

I don't recall writing anything that contradicts that. Perhaps you could point it out.

Sure You said: the nudity taboo has been gaining influence, particularly where children are concerned.

The president of British Naturism disagrees. He says explicitly that that nudity taboos and stigma are being eroded (see quote 1 below), that young people are more engaged with naturism than their elders (see quote 2 below) and that he has confidence in the future re nudism (see quote 3 below).

1. “It turns out that there’s a huge, hidden enthusiasm for nude recreation,” said Dr Mark Bass, the president of British Naturism. “Attitudes to nudity are changing with taboos and stigma being eroded.”

1. The survey also found that while naturism was “often perceived to be something that old retirees do”, it was in fact the younger generation who were far more likely to identify as naturists or nudists, with almost half of respondents aged 16 to 24 doing so, compared with just 6% of those aged 45 to 75." "Younger people really are diving into it far more than their elders have done,” he added.

1. “That gives us a lot of confidence in the future. This is a newer, modern way of living that younger people are engaging with rather than just maintaining the status quo.”

My 14-year-old son has spent his entire life being naked on holiday every summer, with dozens of other people of all ages, all naked. He would be horrified to encounter naked people in a restaurant. As I would be if he did.

When it comes to societal conventions personal likes/dislikes absolutely carry weight when they are supported by a large number of people.

it also strikes me that public nudity only avoids being criminal if it can be reasonably demonstrated that there was no intention to cause distress. This thread alone proves that expecting a public environment to conform to an individuals desire to go nude means that there’s a reasonable expectation they will be causing distress.

That’s what you’re arguing for, to have your way regardless of any distress that has no opportunity to be avoided because you apparently ‘don’t believe’ in it.

Carry on with your prejudice argument but it’s ridiculous. Nudity isn’t an unchangeable characteristic, you just like it.

What’s wrong is mostly your interpretation of the statistics. I bet there are many many people who are happy to sunbathe topless or skinny dip when in a fairly secluded area who also think that this couple deciding to eat naked in a family friendly restaurant with no history of nudism is antisocial. And yet you are going on as if 14% of the UK would happily eat naked in a restaurant/see others eat naked in a restaurant of otherwise clothed diners. That’s not what that number means. It’s like me doing a survey to find out how many people like chocolate and then assuming that means 80% of people in the Uk will all definitely buy my new chocolate coated bacon snack.

I've no beef with nudism.

No beef with nudity itself.

I have a strong response to people deliberately trying to 1. undermine social norms and 2. force others to endure situations where they are uncomfortable and 3. coerce or manipulate people into accepting things they're not comfortable with.

It's basic consent. It's not rocket science. I'm sure you and many other nudists understand it very well and respect social conventions.

I sort of hope he is being contrary for the sake of it and getting some sort of kick out of the responses, otherwise he is wasting his own time as well as other people's.

It's refreshing to hear from someone like yourself who is part of a lifestyle but absolutely recognises that your desire doesn't outweigh the rights of other people. I'd like to think that the vast, vast majority of naturists are probably very much like you.

Unfortunately as with anything in life, there always seems to be a very vocal minority within any group who shout the loudest.

And we've had some bizarre and quite concerning input from one of the shouters on this thread. It really is remarkable to witness yet another man coming into a predominantly female space, dominating the discussion by dismissing answers to questions (repeatedly asking 'what risk?' etc despite getting answers) and then having the gall to attempt to dictate how the whole discussion will continue as if we're lucky they are bestowing us with their wisdom.

The condescending and patronising tone has been quite something to behold.

I hope for your sake that the majority of naturists are more like you and less like them!

The availability of what people really look like is much more severely curtailed than it used to be, particularly for children. How can anyone, and especially children, be expected to know what is normal when normal is systematically censored? They are left with the output of the glamour and pornography industries. When did you last see a picture of what genitals typically look like in the main stream media? Have you tried health web sites? The only picture on the NHS site last time that I looked was of a pair of trousers! It is no wonder that labiaplasty is one of the fastest growing areas of cosmetic surgery despite the dubious efficacy and substantial risk of complications.

I fear that you are reading more into what I said than is justified. Try taking a look at some of the other questions in that poll.

Could someone call British Naturism and ask them to come and get Malcolm, please? He's really not doing the organisation any favours, here.

My experience of the naturists I know (very few of whom are British, I have to say, they are mostly German, Belgian and Austrian) is that they absolutely do understand and respect social norms and very much seek to protect our practice of naturism by not offending/upsetting/bothering anyone. If you asked me about it I would no doubt extol the benefits if it, just as for anything I enjoy and believe is good for me and my family, but I would never expect anyone to have any involvement in it whatsoever unless they absolutely wanted to (including seeing naked people where they would not expect them to be).

OK, in Croatia you may well glimpse naked people in the distance, sunning themselves on their boats as you sit on your textile beach. But you are not going to see naked people in restaurants. We just don't do that.

Is Malcom still mansplaining..?

Performing further desperate contortions, to convince us that exposing himself to, non consenting children and adults is actually healthy and beneficial.

Yes, we're now getting a lesson on how children are deprived of seeing nude bodies and this is causing labioplasty.

How exactly is banning nudity "erring on the side of caution"? How do you know that the opposite is not true and that you are "erring on the side of recklessness"?

😂

Look at the evidence. That is all that I ask.

Oh, so you’re telling me I misunderstood you? So then what exactly was the point in telling us that 14% of Brits who agreed to participate in a survey on naturism ticked a box to say they once sunbathed topless on a thread where people including some naturists, are discussing whether or not appropriate to bring your surprise uncovered penis to the pub?

I fear that you are reading more into what I said than is justified. Try taking a look at some of the other questions in that poll.

People aren't reading more into what you said than is justified. They're just questioning the accuracy / validity of what you said. You said that one in seven people in the UK are naturists:

You would probably be surprised how many of your friends are naturists, it is about 14%, or one in seven, if your friends are similar to the overall national picture.

The poll you've used to justify this claim expanded the definition naturist to include someone who has partaken in nude sunbathing or swimming. Which, as you well know, is very different to someone identifying as a naturist.

But because of the definition used, which does not reflect the general use of the term naturist in day to day life, the results of the poll included people happy to skinny dip on occasion / sunbathe topless around friends (for example) as being naturists.

If someone snogged their same sex pal at school, it doesn't make them bisexual unless they identify as such. If a poll says 'bisexuality is defined as anyone who has had sexual contact including kissing with a member of the same sex' then I would have serious reservations about the results claiming 'X% of people say they are bisexual.'

It's a flawed data set in the context of real life because occasionally not wearing clothes in specific, rare settings does not a nudist make. But I think you know that.

Conflating people who once "skinny dipped" in the sea when they were 18 and drunk with those who practice naturism is ridiculous. A poll that does this is just nonsense. I am not convinced the number of naturists has increased, although I have no data to back that up, just anecdote/seeing the same number of people (well actually the very same people!) on the beach every year.

@MalcolmBoura

I think what has happened is that you're very used to speaking in an echo chamber and being told your points are sound and data sets are unbiased when that's simply not the case.

When held up to scrutiny, you flounder, claim people are misunderstanding you even when they directly quote you, attempt to reset the debate and dictate the terms on which it continues.

There have been perfectly reasonable, nice and genuine people on the thread who are also naturists. Who would probably like to be able to be free of clothes in more places than they currently are, but respect the fact there are reasons that is not possible on balance.

Perfectly nice people who don't want their preference to be nude to bulldoze the right of women to not feel fearful or traumatised in a public space. Who respect that their right to be comfortable doesn't trump the rights of other people to be comfortable.

You do them a huge disservice with your tone and approach.

A thing that I find most disturbing about this story is that as naturists, we like to be around other naturists, not textile people, when we are practicing naturism. Why did these "naturists" want to be naked in a restaurant?

Speaking for myself, I get a lot of pleasure from being on an FKK beach with lots of other naturists. If it was just being naked on a beach and swimming naked in the sea that I loved, then I could easily find a secluded area and swim there by myself or just with my family (which we absolutely also do, at other times). It's the togetherness and shared freedom of it all that is part of the naturism experience. Because of this we really really don't like textiles on our beach (to the extent that they can get asked to leave if they won't shed their clothes). I can think of nothing worse than being in a completely textile environment and trying to practice my naturism there. Not just because it would be intrusive and upsetting to others (although obviously I am aware that it would be, and that would be a major reason not to do it) but because I would not enjoy it at all. Naturism is not just being naked, everyone does that every day, it is a shared belief system and lifestyle.

Which makes me feel very strongly that this story is not about naturism at all. If Malcolm is a real naturist, I believe, he would understand that too.