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!)

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

@MillyMollyFarmer

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.

In a democracy laws should be (and often are) carefully drafted to balance the rights of the majority with those of minorities.

See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

The former poster who stated he would continue to expose himself on public walks is doing so despite reading this thread knowing many find it distressing. A clear intention there.

Jeez floaty. Why you so keen to be cool with men being naked where no one expects them to be naked

You are so cool

balance the rights of the majority with those of minorities

It isn’t a right to expose your genitals to others without their consent. The right not to be treated differently or prevented from things others are, like marriage, is quite different. Trying to link them is gross.

Flashers are now a vulnerable minority ffs

Haha they so are lol.

Pity on the flasher#

Ooooh Tony. The poor flashers minority. 🤣🤣🤣

It’s really simple. Keep your dick in your pants so none of us have to see that dick

Unless we want to

@littlbrowndog

Ooooh Tony. The poor flashers minority. 🤣🤣🤣

The minority I was thinking of here was obviously naturists. The naturist rambler guy on here clearly stated he wasn't an exhibitionist and actively tried to avoid people, or cover up if necessary. That doesn't sound like a flasher to me.

Are you really calling him (and by extension) all naturist walkers and ramblers flashers?

I do recognize that our society makes nudity into something different for women and for men. We men can take our clothes off and feel free, with vulnerability being (maybe) a little extra thrill, whereas for women simply being alone is vulnerability enough. That’s been mentioned amply in

That’s what he said Tony. See up there

A little extra thrill

I dunno what men who go about naked in the hills do what they do and why they do it but that dude got a wee extra thrill 🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Yes if they’re not in known naturist spots. You’re exposing yourself and causing distress and as above, that’s something you can be prosecuted for. People like that think of it as a right. I think the right not to be exposed to someone’s genitals or participate in their fetish overrides any belief in that right for reasons discussed at great length here. Ignoring women’s distress and the effects of sexual violence on others in seeing unknown naked men is completely lacking in empathy and placing something you simply enjoy and can do privately, over others mental wellbeing.

Anyone in Surrey will probably know Box Hill. I was walking there once, mid afternoon in the summer, and a young woman was walking towards me with trainers on, bikini bottoms and nothing else. She wished me a good afternoon. My DH's eyes were out on stalks.

Imagine needing a law before you stop and think 'I wonder how other people I encounter might feel about this choice of mine?'

Idgaf about consensual nudity itself.

It's the thrill that comes from a knowing transgression other people don't consent to that chills me.

@MillyMollyFarmer

The former poster who stated he would continue to expose himself on public walks is doing so despite reading this thread knowing many find it distressing. A clear intention there.

It's not clear at all. He said he didn't intend to cause alarm, and would prefer to avoid people if possible, and failing that, cover up if necessary. It has to be shown that people who saw him were caused actual harm or distress, and that he intended to cause it.

Imagine having the gall to come onto a feminist site and tell women they need to accept your hobby of getting a thrill out of 'being more vulnerable' by walking in public places naked. It's not your flaccid sunburned penises that bother me at this point, it's the attitude attached to said penis.

@littlbrowndog

I do recognize that our society makes nudity into something different for women and for men. We men can take our clothes off and feel free, with vulnerability being (maybe) a little extra thrill, whereas for women simply being alone is vulnerability enough. That’s been mentioned amply in

That’s what he said Tony. See up there

A little extra thrill

I dunno what men who go about naked in the hills do what they do and why they do it but that dude got a wee extra thrill 🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

I don't think a thrill has to be sexual, does it? but I do agree however it is a poor choice of word on his part. I would ask him to clarify what he meant by that.

He said he didn't intend to cause alarm, and would prefer to avoid people if possible, and failing that, cover up if necessary.

Funny how I can tell him exactly what to do to avoid being naked in public with people who might be alarmed. He absolutely doesn't give a shit what others think if he goes walking around naked in public.

I think I'd find it hard to keep straight face if I bumped into some naturists but I can see why feminists would get annoyed by it.

He said he didn't intend to cause alarm,

And yet, he is. And has been told so by the majority of posters on this thread.

And ignored them.

It has to be shown that people who saw him were caused actual harm or distress, and that he intended to cause it.

He now knows his actions may cause great distress to women. This has not been exaggerated. Be honest, call it what it is. Exhibitionism. Wrapped up in a nice name and even a philosophy. Because, he is not doing it in a designated area or on his own property.

Doesn't bother me, to eaches own. Not wearing clothes in the British climate is very seasonal anyway!

It has to be shown that people who saw him were caused actual harm or distress

Have you seen the latest statistics for women suffering Sexual based violence? It is quite shocking. And on the increase thanks to the porn industry.

But yeah.... the onus is on women to show this man the actual harm he has caused and whether it has been his intention. A woman walking alone would likely not show fear, and would seem to carry on. Because that is female conditioning. Being a lone woman without hand to hand combat training, I would maintain visual and keep walking. I would call the police but chances are he will not be caught. And with such very low prosecution rate for sex based violence, probably nothing would happen anyway.

Tell women again, on a feminist forum, just why

-we should be accepting of seeing a man naked in a place where we are far from help and expected to be safe enough to walk alone.

-Why the onus is on us to prove what actual harm it has caused.
-why when he has already told us it is a ‘thrill’ he is right to continue.
-why we women should continue to accept the lowering of sexual boundaries. (if this was in a designated area no one would have a problem. Therefore it is reasonable to assume (thrill and all) that it is exhibitionism that women have no choice in being part of.)

Please explain because all I am getting is a continued lack of empathy and ‘what about’ freedom and men’s feelings.

Ps I have been flashed in a park, that's far more threatening than a naturist (though I had the last laugh because my dog knew the guy was doing wrong and started to seriously bear teeth etc, he ran!

It has to be shown that people who saw him were caused actual harm or distress

Oh you mean like until we have enough women rugby players with fractured skulls and enough women who have been assaulted in toilets and all have come to an agreement on what 'actual' harm and 'actual' distress means and checked that those women really were beyond all doubt and nice reasonable mansplaining and all possible hoop jumping really were damaged past acceptable limits

….. that men should have absolute sexual freedom and no responsibility or limits on their self expression?

No mate. This is why we have laws: because some people are total dicks. And some men really like to make other people (mostly women) uncomfortable. Particularly when they can manoever it so that women can't do anything to stop them.

It's another version of 'you're beautiful when you're angry darling' and that muppet in the Guardian who likes involving the young female sales assistants as he buys knickers in excruciating and loving detail to get them as embarrassed as possible while he compels them to be involved in his sexual experience. He mentioned how he liked to smile at them at the tills in a way to explain to them 'you may not be enjoying it but I am'.

No, other people should not have to fit around your desire to behave badly and treat other people as props. No, not going to indulge in a lot of wanky language around dressing this up as ok. Learn to deal with boundaries.

It has to be shown that people who saw him were caused actual harm or distress, and that he intended to cause it.

The law is libertarian, which is fine if people are capable of behaving responsibly, balancing their rights with the responsibility to not harm others.

If men who like to roam naked have paid the slightest attention to women's testimony, they should now be in no doubt that this behaviour runs the risk of harming or distressing others. Knowing that, it's surely their responsibility to avoid doing so. It's what other naturists do - they use designated areas, or don't go fully naked in public. Don't wait until the distress has been caused and the harm done.