Signage for Nudist Beaches
Sylvia Else
thinking is.
What are the merits, and demerits, of having signs at nudist beaches
that state that sexual activity is not permitted?
Sylvia.
Gerald
It would simply be wrong. Anyone who reads this would be given the
impression that if we're not told to behave properly, we'd be happily
swinging and screwing each other on the beach all day long like
monkeys. Try to erect a sign like this on Bondi Beach and ask the same
question. Clearly, there should be absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in one's
behaviour in public, whether one is dressed OR in the nude. And as far
as 'sexual activity not permitted' is concerned, that is pretty obvious
in our society, or isn't it?
Gerald
Sylvia Else
Gerald wrote:
> Sylvia
>
> It would simply be wrong. Anyone who reads this would be given the
> impression that if we're not told to behave properly, we'd be happily
> swinging and screwing each other on the beach all day long like
> monkeys. Try to erect a sign like this on Bondi Beach and ask the same
> question. Clearly, there should be absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in one's
> behaviour in public, whether one is dressed OR in the nude. And as far
> as 'sexual activity not permitted' is concerned, that is pretty obvious
> in our society, or isn't it?
>
> Gerald
I sympathise with with point of view, yet we have a clear situation
where people DO come to nudist beaches and commit these offences, at a
level not found at textile beaches.
The response to the signage at Cobblers was interesting. These people
have been indulging in quite serious offences (obscene exposure, for
example) for a long time, yet are concerned about the new signs. The
best I can make of this is that they are simply not conscious of the
fact that what they're doing is unlawful. Put a sign there that says so,
and maybe they'll react accordingly.
So it looks like a question of balancing costs and benefits. The costs
are that people are prompted to think that nudists engage in sex on
beaches if not expressly prohibited from doing so. The benefits are that
people who are not nudists will stop doing it.
Sylvia.
Dario Western
It comes down to how easily accessible the beach is to the general public.
If it is a privately owned beach by people who run a property for
swing-related activities, then I don't see any problem with it.
Having said that, I honestly don't think that Australians are ready to
accept public sex on beaches as 'normal' behaviour. If the beaches you have
in mind are used by families with their kids then it's common sense not to
go at it in their presence.
As has been said in another post, the use of nudist beaches by the
swinger/beat crowd is most certainly not the sort of thing that our
politicians and the public at large want. Peter Beattie is putting his
trust in nudists as a whole to show respect for the broader community's
sensibilities and also trusts that none of us are going to behave like that
demented nut at Brisbane's South Park (I mean, Bank) a few months ago.
I certainly don't go to nudist beaches for sexual activity. I go there to
enjoy the sun and participate in some sporting activities. Signage on
beaches comes about because there are some people who have no consideration
for other people, or the delicate .
Dario Western
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:42ccd747$0$10101$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Gerald
elements in this world. In this case I propose also signs like 'do not
rob this bank' at your local branch or 'it is not permitted to shoot
your neighbour' on fence posts or 'this car is not to be stolen or
broken into' on your car door etc.
Gerald
Marsketa
What are the merits, and demerits, of having signs at nudist beaches
that state that sexual activity is not permitted?
About the same as the merits and demerits of having such signs at all non
nudist beaches I would suggest.
Sylvia Else
Gerald wrote:
Gerald, it's perfectly true that signs prohibiting actions do not
prevent them from occurring. Nevertheless, from what I've seen, they do
influence behaviour. So the question we need to answer in this case is
would they do more harm than good, or would they, despite their negative
aspects, be worthwile.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Dario Western wrote:
> Hi Sylvia,
>
> It comes down to how easily accessible the beach is to the general public.
> If it is a privately owned beach by people who run a property for
> swing-related activities, then I don't see any problem with it.
>
> Having said that, I honestly don't think that Australians are ready to
> accept public sex on beaches as 'normal' behaviour. If the beaches you have
> in mind are used by families with their kids then it's common sense not to
> go at it in their presence.
>
> As has been said in another post, the use of nudist beaches by the
> swinger/beat crowd is most certainly not the sort of thing that our
> politicians and the public at large want. Peter Beattie is putting his
> trust in nudists as a whole to show respect for the broader community's
> sensibilities and also trusts that none of us are going to behave like that
> demented nut at Brisbane's South Park (I mean, Bank) a few months ago.
>
> I certainly don't go to nudist beaches for sexual activity. I go there to
> enjoy the sun and participate in some sporting activities. Signage on
> beaches comes about because there are some people who have no consideration
> for other people, or the delicate .
>
>
> Dario Western
Thanks Dario.
I think it goes pretty much without saying that the sexual activity is
prohibited. I'm certainly not suggesting that one might permit sexual
activity on a beach.
The issue here is more about whether it's appropriate to have signs
saying that it's prohibited, instead of simply expecting people to
realise that it is.
Sylvia.
Gerald
they have put me (and every other decent naturist) off going there. So
another beach is lost to a minority within a minority and left to
whatever happens there according to the sign suggesting what might
happen there. Got it?
Gerald
Sylvia Else
Gerald wrote:
> Yes Sylvia, signs influence behaviour. In the case of Tyagarah Beach
> they have put me (and every other decent naturist) off going there. So
> another beach is lost to a minority within a minority and left to
> whatever happens there according to the sign suggesting what might
> happen there. Got it?
>
> Gerald
Do you have any concrete evidence that the sign has deterred all decent
naturists? Or are you defining "decent naturist" to be those naturits
deterred by the sign?
Are naturists as a group really so emotionally fragile that a simple
sign is enough to stop them participating in an activity they enjoy?
Sylvia.
Arfur Moo
<dario....@nospampowerup.com.au> wrote in
<x16ze.527$ZB6....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>:
> [. . .]
>
> If it is a privately owned beach [. . .]
>
> [. . .]
Dario, I'm still learning, so I need to know whether any Australian beach, at
least up to the high-tide mark, can be privately owned.
--
Arfur Moo
/Jeßus/
It would give a very negative vibe, and spoil the atmosphere of the place.
It's a sign, and we have far too many signs as it is.
/Jeßus/
<snip>
> So it looks like a question of balancing costs and benefits. The costs
> are that people are prompted to think that nudists engage in sex on
> beaches if not expressly prohibited from doing so. The benefits are that
> people who are not nudists will stop doing it.
True. Just like all them speed limit signs on the roads, very effective
indeed.
Sylvia Else
/Jeßus/ wrote:
Are you suggesting that they have no effect? There is a benefit if some
people obey them, even if not all people do.
Sylvia.
mail2news
Like lerts, do you mean?
Marsketa
My Preferences Email to a friend Bookmark Post Log Out
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 11 of 11 Topic 224 of 224
Post > Topic >>
Re: Signage for Nudist Beaches
by Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> Jul 8, 2005 at 08:25 AM
Gerald wrote:
> Yes Sylvia, signs influence behaviour. In the case of Tyagarah Beach
> they have put me (and every other decent naturist) off going there. So
> another beach is lost to a minority within a minority and left to
> whatever happens there according to the sign suggesting what might
> happen there. Got it?
>
> Gerald
There are signs in Tyagarah National park which warn about sexual
harrassment. These signs are placed at the path to the fresh water lakes
behinf the beach which is NOT legal for nudity. There are also signs
warning that the water is unsuitable for swimming. But this area is well
known as a Gay beat. There is also a sign at the beach carpark which
carries a similar warning. Since the recent complainst about sexual
harrassment etc at the beach, local residents had a public meeting. Police
were there to find out what the locals wanted. It was decided not to revoke
the legality of the nude beach. It was also decided to replace signs
warning against sexual harrassment which had been previously destroyed by
unknowns. I was only concerned that they did not replace the sign which
indicated where the nude beach started (100m south of the track from the
carpark through sand dunes). So this sign covers sexual harrassment in the
carpark and presumably also at the toilets. Presumably the sign about
sexual harrassment also pertains to the beach. However only the beach 100m
south of the track is legal for nudity. The beach north of the track is not
legal for nudity. Therfore I feel that the sign is not singling out nudist
in particular because it covers people in areas where nudity is not legal.
So I can't really understand why Gerald is taking this so personally.
Sexual harrassment and other problems are occurring in this area. There
have been complaints. There is no point burying one's head in the sand and
saying it doen't happen. But the 'decent nudists' are the victims not the
perpetrators.
Do you have any concrete evidence that the sign has deterred all decent
naturists? Or are you defining "decent naturist" to be those naturits
deterred by the sign?
THe FBA goes there once every two months in a large group (50-100 people)
to play volleyball. I can assure you our members are all 'decent nudists'
and none are there for sex on the beach or to sexually harrass others.
Many of our members go there regularly on their own. The signs are not a
deterrant for these 'decent nudists' enjoying the legal nude beach at
all.
Marsketa
nudist beaches I would suggest.
Just considering the Byron Bay area for instance. There have been numerous
incidences of sexual harrassment on regular beaches (not nude) in the area
with several rapes and a murder in recent times. Nothing like this has
occurred at the nudist beach. I understand that the authorities are
considering signs for non nudist beaches in the area about notonly sexual
harrassment but sexual assault as well.
Of course public sex happens on non nude beaches as well. At "schoolies"
celebrations on the Gold Coast it is happening all over the beaches every
night.
gco0307
You ask the question whether naturists are so fragile that a sign would
put them off doing something they enjoy but you want signs in place to
stop people from behaviours that they may also enjoy.
In some way, is this not hypocritical?
gco0307
beaches are those indicating that legal nude bathing is permitted and also
those advising to remove your rubbish.
Signs will not deter inappropriate behaviour.
To place a sign that no sexual behaviour is permitted could be seen as
indicating that such behaviour occurs and therefore attacting more of the
very crowd you are trying to eradicate.
A further concern with any signs as you propose is that you must define
sexual behaviour. To some people, any form of touching between two people
can constitute sexual behaviour, therefore a man and woman could be deemed
to break the law if the kiss, or even pat one another on the back. Is that
what you want?
The term 'sexual activity' has a broad definition amongst the general
public so could not be enforced anyway.
I can honestly say that I have only ever been to 1 nudist beach (unoffical
but common) where sexual activity has occurred within view of other beach
goers. Yet I have been to 4 or 5 textile beaches and have witnessed people
having sex on these beaches in the middle of the day. One such beach is
actually within 5 minutes walk of the CBD of a major coastal city with a
walkway behind it.
Garry
gco0307
Sylvia Else
gco0307 wrote:
I don't think the hypocrisy suggestion works, because we're comparing
naturists' response to signs that do not purport to prohibit naturist's
activities with non-naturists' response to signs that do.
But in any case, all I'm suggesting is that there be signs that indicate
what the law already is. People may enjoy those behaviours, but those
behaviours are already unlawful.
I can add at this point that I seem to be out of step with the thinking
of the members of the NLP, and accordingly in any discussions withe
NPWS, I'd have to oppose the idea of having signs advising that sexual
behaviour is prohibited (even though it is).
Sylvia.
Maria
> You ask the question whether naturists are so fragile that a sign would
Yes, naturists are fragile. Hardcore nudists, on the other hand, would
not care.
Threadbare
>There are signs in Tyagarah National park which warn about sexual
>harrassment.
WARNING: Proceed beyond this point and you may be sexually harrassed.
???
Threadbare
Sylvia Else
Threadbare wrote:
Um...that might be construed by some as express permission to harrass
people sexually.
Sylvia.
Threadbare
>Are naturists as a group really so emotionally fragile that a simple
>sign is enough to stop them participating in an activity they enjoy?
s/naturists/exhibitionists/ and you've answered your own question.
Threadbare
Sylvia Else
Threadbare wrote:
I don't see what point you are making.
Sylvia.
Threadbare
Your definition of "hardcore nudists" is ...?
No tautologies please.
Threadbare
Threadbare
>What are the merits, and demerits, of having signs at nudist beaches
>that state that sexual activity is not permitted?
Methinks the novelty of such a sign at any beach could be a great
tourist attraction for the area--at least until the sign itself was
souveniered.
The international pictorial prohibiting the walking of dogs is a dog
in a circle with one diagonal. What would be your design for the
pictorial symbol declaring a prohibition on sexual activity?
Threadbare
Sylvia Else
Threadbare wrote:
I have no idea. It doesn't have to be a pictorial symbol. Also, my
thoughts were more along the lines that there would be a sign drawing
attention to the existing prohibition on sexual activity, rather than a
sign declaring, or creating, one.
However, it seems that the majority view is opposed to the existence of
such a sign anyway.
Sylvia.
Threadbare
>But in any case, all I'm suggesting is that there be signs that indicate
>what the law already is. People may enjoy those behaviours, but those
>behaviours are already unlawful.
I clearly recall how not all that long ago nude bathers at Cobblers did
so under a sign proclaiming "Nudity prohibited". Maybe the habit of
ignoring prohibition signs has become ingrained in the population?
Threadbare
Marsketa
???
Threadbare
Threadbare,
I thought you had more sense than that. The signs warn people not to
sexually harrass others. Durrr!
Marsketa
<The international pictorial prohibiting the walking of dogs is a dog
in a circle with one diagonal. What would be your design for the
pictorial symbol declaring a prohibition on sexual activity?
Threadbare
I should think that silhouette pictures of all the Kama Sutra positions
depicting both Male/male and male /female couplings each in their
individual circle with diagonal cross through them would be the
approapriate design for such a sign! LOL
Arfur Moo
Marsketa
No, the only beaches that could posibly be privately owned are beaches on
privately owned Islands. Cobbler's Beach is not privately owned. Below the
low tide belongs to Harbour and Marine. Between the high tide and low tide
is Council owned. Above the high tide mark belongs to National Parks in
this case.
Threadbare
That would make for a great tourist attraction in any case. I can picture
busloads of Japanese tourists bypassing the sights at Bondi to trek down
the bush track at Mosman to have their photos taken alongside a giant
billboard of Karma Sutra icons!
But even if you could think up every possibility, aren't you overlooking
the offending single male here? Though to be seen as being even-handed
we'd better include single females, as well.....
Threadbare
Maria
Threadbare
>>"Marsketa" <anita...@bigpond.com> writes:
>>>There are signs in Tyagarah National park which warn about sexual
>>>harrassment.
>>
>>WARNING: Proceed beyond this point and you may be sexually harrassed.
>>
>>???
>
>I thought you had more sense than that. The signs warn people not to
>sexually harrass others. Durrr!
Well, can you tell us what is the exact wording on the signs? Most here
would have never set eyes on a council sign declaring some area of the
local geography to be off-limits for sexual harrassment. I'm curious to
know what how it's stated.
Threadbare
Gerald
attraction for Byron bay ... Japanese tourists posing to be harassed by
locals in front of the famous sign ... now that's a marketing campaign
for free beaches!
Gerald
Arfur Moo
Arfur Moo
my _second_ sending of it, I should have said _third_. My first was on 8
July, and my second was on 27 July.)
-------------------
Marsketa
If an Island is privately owned then it's beaches are privately owned as
well.
Marsketa
tommyc...@gmail.com
> I know this has arisen before, but I'd like to see what people's current
> thinking is.
> What are the merits, and demerits, of having signs at nudist beaches
> that state that sexual activity is not permitted?
>
hi sylvia is this beach still a nude beach