Naked bike ride - protect our children

[cleaningthebog]

The one where the men get their jollies showing their cock and balls. There is a petition which is not getting much traction. You may want to sign if you don't want to encourage this.
https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-naked-bike-ride-from-being-in-public-spaces

A naked flag shaggers event does sound worrying.

Maybe the OP could link to a petition just in case?

Tbh my primary concern would be protecting the bike riders from my kids falling about in hysterics. We already had an incident where we accidentally paddle boarded through a popular nudist bathing spot on the river Cam last year and DD (7) and her friend laughed so hard they fell in and I had to fish them out of the river.....

No, I was responding to the posters who think they’d be fine with naked men walking around everywhere. I guess that’s fine when you’re with crowds but I regularly walk around and see solo people (park, residential streets etc) and I wouldn’t feel safe alone on a street with a naked man.

Still out in public though so not the same as being in an enclosed space where they could easily block the door if they wanted. And if they're with you in a deserted part of a park they'd be just as much of a potential risk with clothes on as they would be naked.

Disagree.

Im assuming you think streaking is a non-crime?

Is streaking someone going about their lawful business, do you suppose? Or is there some other intent?

Bodies are just bodies. Seeing someone riding a bike nude might make a child laugh or ask questions but it isn’t going to cause them irreparable psychological damage.

Oh please, surely you can do better than that?

As my old forn teacher used to say ‘it’s not funny and it’s not clever.’

The latter. As it is for att least some of the naked bike riders.
As witnessed by several posters.

A couple of posters have mentioned seeing multiple erections amongst participants. Most posters have not. I would suggest the erection-spotters are mistaken or lying.

You think he's any more or less of a risk wearing clothes?

This is like reverse victim blaming

Streaking isn't the same though

That's like saying someone having a bonfire thinks arson is OK

Streaking is done with intent to alarm/annoy/disturb people so that makes it a crime.

Annoying and disturbing people is not a crime.

I suppose only really intent to alarm would make it a crime, I'd consider disturb to be similar in meaning to alarm or distress but yeah annoy is not.

Nope. Law enforcement don’t need to prove intent to annoy to arrest and charge a streaker.

I find it odd too, from straight & bi women. It's not OK for men to mock fannies, and while men don't have the same misogyny issues, there's no need to be horrible. Plenty of men have body image issues themselves, after all.

Incidentally, I was reading this claim from a blog which quoted Sheila Jefferys.

“Naturism is a male campaign - naked bike rides, they just want to show their naked penises to everyone. In Naturist families, sexual abuse is rampant.” (She’s got a point here, I once went on a naturist island by mistake. I was the only single woman there, and felt truly creeped out. All the women were married, coerced into it I felt.)

• I think these claims sound a bit sweeping- is there evidence for them?

I hate the burka but I don't think being comfy with seeing naked people or being naked in public is some gold standard of liberation
.

In the UK its not a crime without criminal intent. They might arrest and charge as facts aren't always known at the scene but if no intent is found then no case.

Would you be happy with multiple naked people wandering around the streets? At what point would you think it was unacceptable? ( That's a question for people generally not aimed at anyone)

Maybe - just maybe - deal with that as and when it happens.

We don't make laws by asking you what you think should be acceptable and then listing everything you haven't with the word "Ban " in front.

Yet.

But we do make laws that way. People think something is not acceptable, and we have a law to deal with it. I can remember when lots of things weren't law but are now. It became unacceptable for a reason, but had once been acceptable. There are laws which many people disagreed with at the time, but are now considered to be fine, with the majority of people not wondering why it's the law.

This is partly true.

The making of laws can be initiated by public pressure or a majority view, but in all cases the law must be weighed up to ensure they don't conflict with other laws, elements of the constitution, impinge on things like others freedom of expression or belief without good reason, and so on and so forth. There is also the consideration of whether a law is actually enforceable and whether or not it's "good law".

Nudists are very much a minority in this country, however when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was set out specific consideration was given to their freedom of expression. This is why nudity in and of itself is not a crime, but has to have an aggravating factor in order to cross the line into a criminal act.

There is also the fact that a govt mandating a certain level of clothing is likely to be unenforceable and full of holes (I set some of this out earlier in the thread). It would be bad law, regardless of whether or not it had public backing in a referendum.