Come on, live and let live.

Blessed be and may you always walk in the Light.

What is hurt, but, our sensibilities. I have yet to come across naked hikers in my many photo forays...just at hot springs.

"So it is not nakedness that gives the sense of immodesty, the modifying the nakedness is what does it."
- A Tramp Abroad, Mark Twain's Notebooks & Journals, Vol. 2

rob
--
Executive Director,
Crater Lake Institute
www.craterlakeinstitute.com
Robert Mutch Photography

umm....................gross!

I think there might be some sort of loophole in NPS bylaws about nudity. Certain areas of the GGNRA - Baker Beach and Black Sands Beach - are almost always filled with nudists. The park rangers don't do a think to try to stop or prevent it, and nobody seems to mind in the least. This may be something particular to the fact that it's San Francisco, of course, but I think the whole reason the nudists decided to set up shop where they did was because of the fact that they could strip down on federal land.

either way, we shouldn't be so afraid of the human body. there are times when nudity is inappropriate, yes, but let's take a lesson from the Europeans - a culture that has a couple hundred years head start on ours - and not demonize ro shun that which is most natural.

Naked is how we 'naturally' arrived in this world and I applaud those who choose to observe such a fun loving tradition. Especially, if it gets more people to go out and hike!

"Filled with nudists" is a bit of an exaggeration, dt, on two counts. The two beaches you mention are not that crowded with unclad bathers, and few of the unclad bathers are actually nudists. Nudism is a lifestyle choice, whereas nude sunbathing on public or private beaches is a recreational option practiced by lots of day-tripping and weekending people who are most emphatically not nudists. Baker Beach, which lies below big cliffs just west of the Presidio, is mainly used for sunbathing, picnicking, and surf fishing. (Swimming is dangerous there because of very cold water, deep drop offs, and strong riptides.) Although Baker is a mile long, only the northern end -- the end nearest the Golden Gate Bridge -- is used for clothing optional sunbathing. Black Sands Beach (aka Bonita Beach) in Marin County is mainly used by first-timers and diehards because it's a major pain to access it (a ten-minute hike in from Conzelman Road, then a steep return climb -- quite strenuous if toting a cooler), and the place can be windy and uncomfortable for nude sunbathing. As you've noted, Bay Area residents are generally tolerant of the clothing optional sunbathing that takes place in certain well defined areas, such as Black Sands and the northern end of Baker. The Park Service has adopted what seems to be a practical policy of looking the other way as long as nobody gets hurt.

Indeed!

We went hiking in Zion's National Park through the "Subway" canyon, and encountered a group of nude hikers. It was really uncomfortable for me, but more uncomfortable for my friend's 8-year old son who was with us. It was unavoidable to see them and run in to them throughout the hike. We first encountered them at one of the first pools you need to cross. They were hangin-out there, pardon the expression, figuring out how to cross.

Just remember that kids are sometimes hiking in National Parks, too....and be prepared to cover up if you HAVE to hike in the buff. Sheesh :)

Bob. There are times to "look the other way". Then again...........

One thing that I'm trying to get a solid handle on is what the current status is regarding ramifications or legal trends against anyone caught hiking naked on federal lands that are in the proximity (within a mile or two) of residential areas? How has Megan's Law affected the policy of looking the other way? Are more hikers being arrested for lewd conduct/indecent exposure which are felonies rather than the prior occasional misdemeanor or admonishments to "putyer pants back on"?

Perhaps it is time for the NPS to designate just a few trails as "clothing optional" and cite anyone who appears nekkid in other areas of the park. This would give both of the naturalists and the nervous each a separately designated area and allow those of us who neither care if you are prude or nude the ability to go anywhere on the trails with the understanding we may or may not encounter nudity. Mostly I think people are concerned about junior or his sis seeing something the parents have not yet discussed with their children, no problem and I understand completely. But then again mom and pop should not freak out when seeing a naked body enjoying the full outdoors if they venture onto a clothing optional trail, I doubt mom or dad was clothed when the offspring were conceived.

Nude is how we arrived in this world and when you die a stranger will strip you nude and dissect and/or bathe your body in preparation for burial or creamation. People should be less uptight about nudity and accpet the fact that nudity in and of it self is not obscene but only natural. It is clothing that makes people "class segregated" and conscious of their appearance. How does someone explain nipples on a man are OK to show in public but nipples on a woman are not? Why is it OK for a young woman to wear a thong to the beach but anyone else is considered gross or perverted? Plain discrimination I see.

This was attempted at Assateague Island for awhile. A section of the beach was set aside for nudist, but they wouldn't stay in their designated spot and would wander on down the beach. The people who prefered suits knew there were nekkid people up north and wouldn't go there, but the nudist would ignore the boundaries and would wander on down, showing it all. I have no problem with nudity, but many people do and that needs to be respected. I'm not saying that all nudists are like this, but a good majority at the beach felt they had the right to go where they pleased.

Also in Shenandoah, there's "Naked Creek" and it's called that for a reason!

Nekkid is a wonderfully useful term, don't you think? It puts me in mind of a standup routine that the late comedian/author Lewis Grizzard used to do. He would say: "There's a difference between naked and nekkid. If we say that Darlene is naked, we mean that she has no clothes on. If we say that Darlene is nekkid, we mean that she has no clothes on and is up to something."

Of all the really important things that face on a daily bases how on earth can people get themselves on there ear over whether people are celebrating Naked Hiker day!!! Perspective People!!! It's just one more way for people to enjoy themselves without hurting anyone.

I suspect that people who walk down trails nude are often 'in it' for something besides the simple 'naturalism'. They are going to encounter clothed hikers who are not prepared for nudity, and will thereby create a socially & psychologically challenging scene. This activity seems pretty closely related to 'flashing' people by opening a trenchcoat, or unzipping the fly.

Nude or clothing-optional *locations* are a whole different thing.

RangerLady is right: most people - WAY most people - accept the nudity taboo ... and the facts of childbirth are bogus.

amen!

Hmm, I don't think you are correct that WAY most people - accept the nudity taboo.

Society's response to public nudity varies on the culture, time, location and context of the activities. There are exceptions and particular circumstances in which nudity is tolerated, accepted or even encouraged in public spaces. Such examples would include sex segregated showers and saunas, clothing optional or nude beaches. The reason nudity in public can considered be considered indecent exposure is because in general and across cultures, more restrictions are found for exposure of those parts of the human body that display evidence of sexual arousal. Sex organs and often women's breasts are covered, even when other parts of the body may be freely uncovered. But there are also clear signs that the existence of a taboo is because many people don't like being in public without their clothes the position and authority in society that it gives them - we are all equal when we are naked and some people find that scary.

To accuse nude hikers of being flashers seems completely over the top and frankly quite narrow minded. If they were flashers would it be fair to assume they would pick areas with more people than remote trails in natural parks?

Another point that seems to escape this conversation is that there is nothing illegal in being nude in public. It is offending other people that can be an offense. This is the legal details on the matter:
In 1992 New York State’s highest court ruled that it was legal for a woman to go into public without covering her breasts. Case in point: Two years ago, a 27-year old New Yorker, Jill Coccaro took a walk without covering her breasts. She was arrested, taken for a psychiatric exam, and thrown in jail for 12 hours. Finally, after someone in the District Attorney’s office realized what had happened, she was released and told no charges would be pressed. In turn, Jill sued the city and, just recently, received a $29,000 settlement.

California State Parks policy dictates nudity on public lands is not, per se, illegal. State Park rangers have operated for decades under a policy known as the "Cahill" policy, named after former Parks Director Russ Cahill:
"it shall be the policy of the Department that enforcement of nude sunbathing regulations within the State Park System shall be made only upon the valid complaint of a private citizen. Citations or arrests shall be made only after attempts are made to elicit voluntary compliance with the regulations."

You might be interested to know that many of our Founding Fathers, including Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, were fond of outdoor nudity. Indeed, one reporter tracked down Mr. Adams as he was bathing naked in the Potomac!

I don't mean to offend anyone, but YOU may be the one with the problem and if you teach your children that they should be ashamed of their body you’re passing that problem on to the next generation. That is up to you, but don't pass it on to everyone else.

Have a nice day :-)

Christian,

Nude trail-walkers are engaged in an activity that is offensive - suddenly 'inflicting' their exposure upon unaware, unprepared "victims". It is appropriate and accurate to compare this activity to that of flashers and other exposure-perverts. I personally enjoy nudist venues, but I don't kid myself that dropping my trousers in the midst of a clothed social setting would be Ok. Unless a trail is recognized as a nude trail, it is offensive - and perverted - to traipse down it naked. Yes, it is reasonable to be suspicious of the internal motives of such 'ambush-nudists': some of them are simply exercising poor judgement, are just being inconsiderate & rude, but others may very well be more worrisome individuals. This sort of thing is 'perfect' for the "real wackos".

At a very low incidence, nude trail hikers are more a bizarre anomaly, but at higher rates I will predict a fairly stiff enforcement-policy against them. Like steakers & flashers, the context of trail-nudity shows that the intent is to shock (that's plainly what will happen), and that's what makes it an offense.

The case of the topless female city-walker you mention did not set a precedent. The problem with her arrest, incarceration, psychiatric examination etc is not that nudity was legal in her jurisdiction, but that those who intervened overreacted to her offense. It's against the law to jay-walk, too, and though we may agree that it's pretty crazy to do so on many streets & highways, there is no need or call for us to get hysterical about it ('hysteria' is the word for the reaction we saw in the topless case). The authorities are lucky she only got $29,000 - but she got it not because it was Ok for her to be exposed, but due to the excesses of her apprehension.

Yes, WAY most people support the nudity taboo 'as we know it'. A quick search does not uncover a definitive nudity-approval poll, but there are useful proxies we can look at (and perhaps more reliable than polls). There are nude beaches, hotsprings, and other free-access public settings where folks can register their disapproval of the nudity taboo and indulge their preference for exposure. These venues are an extremely minor component of the overall beach, hotspring and other public-access venues available. It is simply the case that way most people choose a clothed setting, over a nude alternative. If there was more demand, there would be more nude places.

Socially, private citizens assemble casually in private settings (house-parties) for their mutual benefit & pleasure in many ways & styles. It happens occasionally that such private gatherings incorporate nudity ... but it is really quite unusual, overall. When we say that WAY most people support the nudity taboo, we are actually giving the nudist-faction the benefit of the doubt.

These two proxy-indicators - low use of public nudity-venues, and the tiny incidence of private house-party nudity - are clear affirmations that WAY most people support the nudity taboo - not that they like it, or think nudity per se is inherently disagreeable - but that they accept the status quo as it exist. Yes, it's 'just' a taboo. Do we think that humans have evolved beyond taboos? Does the illusion that only 'primitive' cultures in the Darkest Heart of Hollywood Africa are subject to social taboos & fetishes still affect contemporary North Americans?

The National Parks Traveler website is overwhelmingly about 20th & 21st C. Parks of the United States, the citizenship that owns them, and the governments that control them. The condition of pre-European tribes, especially-liberal sections of other continents, etc, is immaterial to this post & thread. We're talking 'here & now' - and the nudity taboo is overwhelmingly-dominant reality, here & now.

Not only do way-most people support the nudity taboo, but most of those people are not religious, and what's driving our position is not shame, neurosis, etc. I have some sympathy for nudity-activists, and as mentioned I'm happy to join in appropriate nude venues when & where they arise, but the nudism-community (rather like the vegetarian/PETA-community) has a rather-dramatically skewed impression of their own status & significance in the greater community-web, and a baseless optimism in the ascendancy of their preferred outlook. Nudism & vegetarianism both represent noticeably-deluded, small, single-digit portions of the population with little prospect for growth in the foreseeable future.

For an alternative viewpoint, consult the website of the American Association for Nude Recreation. Yes, there is such an organization. In fact, the AANR recently sponsored what they hope will be a Guinness World record skinny dip. The event, staged at a pool in Granger, Indiana, drew 119 participants.

There's a beach in Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore that is a de facto nude beach. From what I hear, the rangers look the other way unless a complaint comes in, and generally just do the, "please cover up" thing and go about their business. Kayaking past the beach is a good way to go nude-watching, should you care to do that.

I agree completely with Christian's comment in this string. I would not intentionally offend
any other hiker. I suit-up when others approach. Sometimes there is a surprise situation,
I attempt to suit up, and the other hiker says, it's fine, go on. No offense was taken, and
the attempt to suit up was appreciated for the politeness, I guess.

Paul

If humans hike naked deep in the forest, can anyone still be offended?