Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Charles Daney's avatar

It's very important to use the terms "naturist" and "naturism" instead of "nudist" and "nudism" in any comments on the proposals. Members of the clothes-freedom community in the U.S. tend to squabble over the terms. But in countries where nonsexual social nudity has some degree of respectability (unlike in the U.S.), "naturist" and "naturism" are the preferred terms by a large margin.

Especially in the U.S., "nudist" and "nudism" are associated with oddballs who go naked in private places, and definitely aren't welcome in public areas such as National Forests. The stem "nat-" is found in words like "nature", "natural", "native", and "national". Consequently, it's much more likely for "naturist" activities to be less controversial.

In the U.S., any terms associated with "nudity" are just asking for trouble. In recent times, the Forest Service has been fairly tolerant of nonsexual nudity except in in popular areas (like campgrounds) or where it's clearly prohibited by local laws. Such laws are often vague about what constitutes "indecent exposure". So in cases of ambiguity, the FS should be clear that enjoying "natural" places without clothing is NOT considered "indecent exposure".

Expand full comment
Matthew DC's avatar

The last section of the document shows the text of the actual proposed revision to the regulation, which reads:

"Revise § 261.4 to read as follows:

§ 261.4

Disorderly conduct.

The following are prohibited when committed intentionally to cause, or recklessly to create a substantial risk of causing, public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence:

(a) Engaging in fighting or any threatening or other violent behavior.

(b) Making an utterance or performing an act that is obscene or threatening or that is made or performed in a manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of peace.

(c) Making noise that is unreasonable considering the nature and purpose of the conduct, location, and time."

This seems a bit narrower than some of the introductory text of the document would suggest, since it refers only to actions that are done "intentionally" or "recklessly" to cause "public alarm, nuisance," etc., and also refers to "obscene" acts instead of "indecent exposure."

That said, all the points you make about ambiguity are definitely valid, just wanted to be precise about what the text of the proposed revision says.

Expand full comment
29 more comments...

No posts