Meeting naturists when hill walking - would you be worried?

[JGACC]

Hi all, I'm interested to gather women's thoughts on this. I read a Facebook post by Macclesfield police this morning asking people to report if they see a male naturist in the Peak District (screenshot attached) as there has been a lot of reports over the last few weeks. I was really surprised that the vast majority of the comments are saying it's legal (which yes it is) and to leave him alone. As a young female who often walks in the Peaks on my own my first thought was...I'd be worried and extremely uncomfortable if I came across him and would probably hide behind a tree or rock and try to call someone. Am I paranoid or is this actually fine and something I should take as lightly as the majority of the (mostly, but not all male) commenting public seem to?

I'll admit I was surprised to learn that it is entirely legal to wander round anywhere nude. It does seem a lot of naturists have no sexual intent and are more interested in being at one with nature. The man in question doesn't seem to have been reported as carrying out threatening behaviour and is probably harmless but it still makes me worried and I don't know if I'm ridiculous or not. (I would rather be ridiculous than not in this case!)

No true acknowledgement of the power disparity here at all.

@Winesalot

Some men get offended by seeing women topless on the beach ( a case in France the other day). Who knows what their individual circumstances are. How should the police react to their concerns?

Floaty. I doubt those offended men feel unsafe with topless women around. Again, I think you are missing the point.

Some people think seeing breasts causes some kind of sexual harm to children, or corrupts them in some way. So in a sense they do feel unsafe.

Personally, I think that men that walk around naked are a bit weird but I feel very uncomfortable with the state interfering. It just feels very arbitrary and a pretext for restricting other freedoms.

It just feels very arbitrary and a pretext for restricting other freedoms.

Please explain this. What other naked activities would it restrict that are not already illegal. Like masturbating in public.

While yes, the harm of ‘exposing’ people to body parts is to be considered. I imagine from listening and having empathy for the women who have posted there experiences in being exposed to naked penises in an unexpected environment when they are by themselves, that it is still nowhere near the trauma that an abuse victim suffers from seeing said penis. Or do you think that the trauma should be suppressed so a male can do whatever he feelz like?

their not there

As I've outlined it's an argument for the state regulating what people wear. Across the world that typically restricts women disproportionately. My understanding is that masturbating in public, a sex act, would be a different type of offence so not that relevant.

As I've outlined it's an argument for the state regulating what people wear.

ok.

However, this is actually about NOT wearing clothes in areas that are not designated as ones where people have free license to choose not to wear them. But I will leave you to it.

I’m a little confused that @Ananec is still planning to continue his activity in public. The law states that a person commits an offence of exposure if they intentionally expose their genitals with the intention of someone seeing them and them being alarmed or distressed. Many contributors (myself included) have explained that unexpectedly seeing his naked body in the countryside would indeed cause us alarm and distress. Why does he think he is above the law?

@Floatyboat your analogies are tiresome and irrelevant. Because they are nothing to do with the law as it stands in this country. And if you are cool with seeing naked people, well bully for you. But the law supports my right to not be confronted by a cock without consent.

@SorryAuntLydia

What is incorrect about the analogy? Do you think the police should tell topless women to cover up if someone is offended or perceives it as threatening?

It might be legal but I think you can still be arrested for it and brought into a police station (it's worth checking that out though).

Maybe I should have more patience for naturists but I don't. I don't really care if someone wants to go skinny dipping, or if someone wants to cool off for a bit on a hot day in the shade, but I don't care for the idea of people walking around naked on trails where they could encounter others. Just because other people find it freeing or thrilling, doesn't mean we should automatically tolerate it or find it normal. I think a lot of them are simply exhibitionists who hide it under lofty sounding intentions.

I think the difference is the degree of minimisation of the risk to women of a man being naked in an area not designated as a naturist area. There seems to be too much glossing over of this risk, either perceived physical risk or trauma from the exposure. Again, absolutely no empathy shown.

Instead that is a sense of 'whataboutery' about these posts.

@Winesalot

I think the difference is the degree of minimisation of the risk to women of a man being naked in an area not designated as a naturist area. There seems to be too much glossing over of this risk, either perceived physical risk or trauma from the exposure. Again, absolutely no empathy shown.

Instead that is a sense of 'whataboutery' about these posts.

And more than a hint of Reddit style tiresome ‘what’s your link, what’s your data, I demand validation for every statement’ They think it’s a debating style - it’s not, it’s hollow posturing.

Get lost, pervy flashers.

Floaty where I think we come up with different conclusions and reasoning, is that you erroneously keep referring to them as ‘naturists’. I have people in my family who are naturists and they do not do this in places people do not expect them to be. There are lots of naked beaches, even in my hometown in NZ, and farms or parks. This man and the man appearing on the thread, are fetishists. There is actually a difference. One does it for themselves and does not need the involvement of unwilling distressed or disturbed participants, the other is a fetishist who does it for personal gratification and gets a kick out of other people’s shock or fear. It’s part of it. Women aren’t out walking naked alone. Only men are.

Get lost Pervy flashers sums it up

And more than a hint of Reddit style tiresome ‘what’s your link, what’s your data, I demand validation for every statement’ They think it’s a debating style - it’s not, it’s hollow posturing.

I think trying to establish if something is actually correct is reasonable. Surely accurate, evidence based assessment of risk is fair enough. This forum has been effective in highlighting the actual risk to women from men identifying as women - that society assumes doesn't exist. I think reference to actual data is important.

It’s not just about physical risk though. As has been evident on this thread, because of the risk of sexual harm by men and the effects of actual sexual violence on a large promotion of women, the distress caused is a factor in whether or not the law should forbid it. The risk of causing harm or preventing others from enjoying the outdoors, are in addition to the perceived increased risk of actual physical sexual harm. I consider being forced to see a penis without consent in a space one wouldn’t expect, to be a form of sexual harassment. Most of us do. Therefore I think you can argue this should be illegal because of harm caused to others.

• Some people think seeing breasts causes some kind of sexual harm to children, or corrupts them in some way. So in a sense they do feel unsafe.

Given that the primary purpose for which breasts evolved - giving the name to our whole class 'mammal' - is to feed young children, with any sexual function being secondary, that's a fairly odd viewpoint isn't it?
Whereas unfortunately the male penis is used all to often for violence.

I've enjoyed the occasional naked swim in the sea and in lakes. I like running barefoot too, and I think I might enjoy a naked run if there weren't such a strong social taboo. (There are taboos about skinny dipping and barefoot running too, but I don't think they're as strong).

The main reason people have given in this thread that such things are unacceptable is that public nudity, especially male nudity, can cause fear and distress, but as I suggested in a previous post, public dog walking can also cause fear and distress, and nobody is suggesting that that should be unacceptable or should be confined to designated areas. Responsible dog walkers can reduce (but not eliminate) the risk of causing fear, distress or physical harm, and I think naturist walkers and runners can too, for example by avoiding crowded areas, keeping their distance as much as possible, and covering up if they see any signs that they're making people uncomfortable.

One objection which has been raised is that some people may find wrinkly naked bodies ugly, but I don't know whether anyone would seriously defend that aesthetic argument.

Another objection is that public nudity goes against social norms and mores in this country. This is an appeal to tradition, and I think it begs the question: it's like saying this is unacceptable because it not accepted.

Some posters have insisted that any man who walks or runs naked outside of designated areas can't be a naturist because no true Scotsman naturist would do that. And if he's not a naturist, he must be an exhibitionist, a 'pervy flasher', who gets thrills by forcing unwitting and unconsenting passers-by to look at his genitals.

I hope the OP's worries have not been aggravated by some of the more extreme comments on the thread, and possibly she may have been somewhat reassured by the news that this man has now presented himself to the police, though she may not be happy that he intends to continue his naked runs.

One objection which has been raised is that some people may find wrinkly naked bodies ugly, but I don't know whether anyone would seriously defend that aesthetic argument

The law in UK does not permit the exposure of a penis in a situation where the viewer has not consented to see it. I don't consent to see random penises which I'm not intending to have any contact with because they are ugly and best covered up.

I don't have to be put into a state of fear as and alarm , as most posters on here seem to be arguing , to justify why I don't want to see them. My objection is largely aesthetic.

My husband is also entitled not to have a random penis exposed to him without his consent. There's no need for him to have to justify why he doesn't want to see a naked rambler- not wanting to see it is enough.

The law in UK does not permit the exposure of a penis in a situation where the viewer has not consented to see it.
Really?

The law in UK does not permit the exposure of a penis in a situation where the viewer has not consented to see it.

Utter nonsense

it's like saying this is unacceptable because it not accepted.

That’s what it means. If the majority can’t accept it, in a democracy, it’s unacceptable to continue and sometimes laws exist to prevent it.

@DidoLamenting

One objection which has been raised is that some people may find wrinkly naked bodies ugly, but I don't know whether anyone would seriously defend that aesthetic argument

The law in UK does not permit the exposure of a penis in a situation where the viewer has not consented to see it. I don't consent to see random penises which I'm not intending to have any contact with because they are ugly and best covered up.

I don't have to be put into a state of fear as and alarm , as most posters on here seem to be arguing , to justify why I don't want to see them. My objection is largely aesthetic.

My husband is also entitled not to have a random penis exposed to him without his consent. There's no need for him to have to justify why he doesn't want to see a naked rambler- not wanting to see it is enough.

You are seriously misinformed about the current law in the UK.

some of the more extreme comments on the thread

The only extreme comments is the man saying he’ll continue to expose himself outside naturist areas despite knowing women find it distressing. Women have been clear and calm on this thread but insistent and firm: we don’t consent to this exposure. Boundaries around genitalia isn’t extreme.