The 'Naked Rambler' jailed for 22 months, following arrest within 60 seconds of his release!

[krtek a houby]

Addicts are only a danger to themselves. So if it's fine to walk about bollock naked wherever we like it should be fine to shoot up wherever we please too. Yeah?

How is the natural state akin to addiction???

Why is an addict a problem? Are they suddenly a danger because they are an addict?

Speaking from experience, some are a danger unto themselves and some are a danger to others.

 

[Spymaster]

A few different issues there. The thing about shooting up in public is that it would lead to needles being left lying around that could pose threats to other members of the public. The prohibition of certain drug consumption is often justified on the basis that addictions can lead to crimes and other forms of anti-social behaviour that threaten others. Naked rambling, in and of itself, does not lead to any such harms. Its merely the act itself that causes offence.

How about public wanking?

Shagging in Tesco?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

How about public wanking?

I've already dealt with that. I think that that can be understood as either threatening behaviour or at the very least is grossly offensive and warrants criminalisation as a result. I don't think public nudity in and of itself crosses that threshold.

 

[Citizen66]

How is the natural state akin to addiction???



Speaking from experience, some are a danger unto themselves and some are a danger to others.

We're exploring your apparent permissive view that the wishes of an individual trump the wishes of those they encounter. However it's now clear that you're not quite so permissive if anti social behaviour were to land on your own doorstep.

 

[Citizen66]

All those coming out in defense of him: how do you suppose a victim of male sexual violence might feel about a naked man plonking himself next to them on a bus?

Are we all completely ignoring the possibility of this scenario then?

 

[Spymaster]

I've already dealt with that. I think that that can be understood as either threatening behaviour or at the very least is grossly offensive and warrants criminalisation as a result.

Why is it more offensive or threatening than this twat walking through a crowd of schoolkids with his cock and bollocks out?

Surely having a quiet wank in the park or a quick bunk up in the frozen foods aisle with just adults around is preferable to that?

 

[joustmaster]

I put this scenario to you before on this very thread but I once reported a man with no clothes on hiding in the bushes next to a primary school at playtime. Following your logic means I was wrong to do so.

I would have called the cops.
anyone hiding in the bushes next to a school is a worry (dressed, or otherwise).
its all about intention.
a gay man walking past a school is not a bad thing (although some think it is). a gay man hiding in a bush by a school looks a bit dodgy... the gay bit isn't important.
you need to make a differentiation between being undressed and wanting to fuck everything.

So you reckon it's ok for some geezer to cruise through a crowd of kids with his cock out?

its not clear what you mean, but it read like you are implying that the person is getting off on showing his cock to kids - which is bad.
involving someone, against their will, for your sexual gratification is bad.
a naked person happening to walk past a group of kids, on their way somewhere is fine.
being undressed doesn't have to be sexual.

How about public wanking?

"if that woman can have her tits out on the beach then i can wank in this carpark.. its the same thing."
why do you keep thinking that not wearing clothes is a sexual choice? these are very different things.
have you never been in public sauna? did you have to start wanking?

 

[Citizen66]

All those coming out in defense of him: how do you suppose a victim of male sexual violence might feel about a naked man plonking himself next to them on a bus?

Liberal dilemma.

 

[Spymaster]

....a naked person happening to walk past a group of kids, on their way somewhere is fine.

Seriously?

If you think that people should be allowed to force their non-sexual nudity (by incident or design) on minors, then we have a fundamental disagreement that's unlikely to be resolved.

"if that woman can have her tits out on the beach then i can wank in this carpark.. its the same thing."
why do you keep thinking that not wearing clothes is a sexual choice? these are very different things.
have you never been in public sauna? did you have to start wanking?

That's not the point that was being made.

The reason that people don't fuck or wank in public is because it's deemed socially unacceptable. That's the same reason that you're rejecting for Gough being sanctioned for his public nudity.

 

[joustmaster]

Seriously?

If you think that people should be allowed to force their non-sexual nudity (by incident or design) on minors, then we have a fundamental disagreement that's unlikely to be resolved.

what do you think will happen to a child if it glances at a passing lady garden or a willy? will they be mentally messed up for the rest of their lives?
should they be blind folded in changing rooms?

That's not the point that was being made.

The reason that people don't fuck or wank in public is because it's deemed socially unacceptable. That's the same reason that you're rejecting for Gough being sanctioned for his public nudity.

the reason people don't wank in public is not due to social niceties, its because its a sexual act that you shouldn't involve non willing parties in.

 

[Citizen66]

what do you think will happen to a child if it glances at a passing lady garden or a willy? will they be mentally messed up for the rest of their lives?
should they be blind folded in changing rooms?

Adult non sexual nudity isn't harmful in and of itself but normalising it in any and every given situation would prove useful to those who do have criminal intentions towards minors.

 

[Spymaster]

the reason people don't wank in public is not due to social niceties, its because its a sexual act that you shouldn't involve non willing parties in.

Why does the fact that it's a sexual act make any difference?

I'm not harming anyone by tossing-off on a bench in Trafalgar Square. I'm not involving anyone else. People should mind their own business.

 

[joustmaster]

Why does the fact that it's a sexual act make any difference?

I'm not harming anyone by tossing off on a bench in Trafalgar Square. I'm not involving anyone else. People should mind their own business.

are you being purposefully dense?
wanking in front of people involves them in your sex act. I would call it sexual assault.
walking isn't a sex act.

 

[joustmaster]

Adult non sexual nudity isn't harmful in and of itself but normalising it in any and every given situation would prove useful to those who do have criminal intentions towards minors.

so could wearing a large smock.

 

[Citizen66]

are you being purposefully dense?
wanking in front of people involves them in your sex act. I would call it sexual assault.
walking isn't a sex act.

Voyeurism is though and you're forcing people into that.

 

[Citizen66]

so could wearing a large smock.

Now who's being puposefully dense? You're yet to answer my earlier question btw.

 

[Spymaster]

are you being purposefully dense?
wanking in front of people involves them in your sex act. I would call it sexual assault.
walking isn't a sex act.

No, you're being inconsistent.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to "involve" people in my sex act (insofar as allowing them to watch it constitutes "involvement"). They don't have to look. What's wrong with that? It's only sex. Perfectly natural.

Answer the question. What's wrong with me performing a public sex act?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Why is it more offensive or threatening than this twat walking through a crowd of schoolkids with his cock and bollocks out?

Surely having a quiet wank in the park or a quick bunk up in the frozen foods aisle with just adults around is preferable to that?

I wasn't aware that he'd walked through a crowd of school kids. I think public masturbation could be seen as threatening to a member of the public in the sense that it could be interpreted as a precursor to a sexual assault. If there's nobody around to catch you go for it if you want - as long as you clear any mess up

Sex in public - there probably isn't anything inherently wrong with this but the norm of confinement of sex to private sphere means that many people would find it distressing to witness. I think the difference between this and mere public nudity is that the latter is not inherently sexual. In fact naked rambling is probably the least sexual thing you could imagine! Whilst it may offend and shock some people, I think most people would find the sex more alarming. Like I said, I think public nudity (subject to context) probably falls on the side of the non-criminal for me, but these are distinctions of degree rather than kind fundamentally.

 

[joustmaster]

Voyeurism is though and you're forcing people into that.

forcing someone one to get off on looking at a non sexual person in a sexual way? I don't think thats a thing. thats something driven by the viewer. a choice by them, not the naked person.

 

[joustmaster]

Now who's being puposefully dense? You're yet to answer my earlier question btw.

which one?

 

[joustmaster]

No, you're being inconsistent.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to "involve" people in my sex act (insofar as allowing them to watch it constitutes "involvement"). They don't have to look. What's wrong with that? It's only sex. Perfectly natural.

Answer the question. What's wrong with me performing a public sex act?

I have answered it.
sexual assault is bad.

 

[Spymaster]

I have answered it.
sexual assault is bad.

But I wouldn't be assaulting anyone.

I'm just trying to have a quiet tug, ffs. In Trafalgar Square.

 

[Citizen66]

forcing someone one to get off on looking at a non sexual person in a sexual way? I don't think thats a thing. thats something driven by the viewer. a choice by them, not the naked person.

If people see something out of the ordinary they look. It's involuntary as you do a double take for the brain to register the new information. If a naked bloke walks down the high st I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that people have a choice whether to look or not. Arousal can be involuntary also.

 

[joustmaster]

But I wouldn't be assaulting anyone.

I'm just trying to have a quiet tug, ffs. In Trafalgar Square.

you don't have to be touching people to sexually assault them.

 

[joustmaster]

If people see something out of the ordinary they look. It's involuntary as you do a double take for the brain to register the new information. If a naked bloke walks down the high st I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that people have a choice whether to look or not. Arousal can be involuntary also.

I wasn't talking about looking or not.
If someone looks at something and finds it a turn on, fair enough. I sometimes look at someone in the street and find them to be a turn on.
Them being naked makes no difference.
Just like when I am in a changing room, sauna, beach, and there are naked people about.

 

[Citizen66]

So when my gf's daughter has her ten year old mates round, it's acceptable for me to wander around the house starkers, in your view?

 

[Spymaster]

you don't have to be touching people to sexually assault them.

Ah right, so what you're saying is that my behaviour could cause some people to feel intimated.

Is that right?

 

[Wilf]

How about public wanking?

Shagging in Tesco?

Bucket List?

 

[joustmaster]

Ah right, so what you're saying is that my behaviour could cause some people to feel intimated.

Is that right?

No, I'm saying you are performing a sex act. One that involves unwilling participants. A sexual assault.
Where as the bearded fellow is just walking along a road.

 

[Citizen66]

So when my gf's daughter has her ten year old mates round, it's acceptable for me to wander around the house starkers, in your view?

You're sort of not really making an argument if you just ignore the awkward questions.