Hang Out With Your Wang Out at San Onofre
Those of you who have been following the saga might be under the impression that you can no longer chill out with your drill out at the end of Trail 6 in San Onofre Sate Park. Well, if you did think that, you were wrong. Apparently “reports of the demise of clothing optional use of state parks are premature!”
The Naturist Action Committee and Friends of San Onofre Beach have filed a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court and the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s order is on hold. Soooooo what this means is you can still rock out with you cock out because the Cahill/Harrison Regulation is still valid throughout California.
Personally, I don’t see the big deal about this. It’s just skin and I have yet to hear one reasonable argument explaining to me why it shouldn’t be allowed. It “seems to be a victimless crime at worst, and certainly an innocuous action” and only a friggin’ retard would be worried about nude suntanning when we he have so many other problems to be concerned with (sorry Gina). If you don’t wanna see someone roll out with their pole out then go anywhere else on the entire west coast aside from the lousy three hundred yards set aside at San Onofre. Sheesh.
Did you just call me a retard?
Listen, I’m not opposed to the nudity part, I’m opposed to the fact that it is technically against the law, except for the Cahill “memo.” Nudity is not allowed in public, and San Onofre qualifies as a public beach.
If the nudists wish to have their own area and pay for it themselves, I’m all for it.
Well now actually it’s only illegal in certain counties (such as Orange) but not illegal in other counties, such as San Diego, which is where San Onofre is located. There is no law against it as it’s not considered lewd conduct in those parts.
There are lifeguards and park rangers at the beach anyway – so it’s not like it will cost less to make them put on clothes. So again, how is it directly affecting those who don’t care to partake? It seems more about morals (not yours but others’) and less about the actual law, which is on the side of the nudists in San Diego county.
And you’re not a retard btw. :)
1st- I have to commend you for your euphemisms (am I using that word correctly?? You know what I mean). Love it.
2nd- Yay! I thought I missed my chance. I have never been to a nude beach and really want to go! Now I still can!
It’s oddly liberating and really good for your body image (believe it or not).
Wait Wait… I got more….
I’m gonna trick out with my dick out…
I’m gonna make out with my snake out…
I’m gonna… uh oh.. I think I ran out of euphemisms…
Ooh ooh… One more…
I’m gonna strut out with my butt out!
Hmmm, I did a little research, and it seems that it is an issue that if there is no complaint against nudity, then certain places will look the ohter way. Otherwise, I’m not sure it’s completely above board.
http://gocalifornia.about.com/cs/clothingoptional/a/nudebeachfedst.htm
I knew you would dig around. I like that about you. :)
It’s not a matter of looking the other way… being nude on a beach is not indecent exposure in California. It’s a matter of cities and counties having their own differing laws — in San Diego County, as far as I am aware, it’s perfectly fine.
Frankly I think the state parks should just designate a couple of areas (which is legal for them to do). It is only prohibited (by the parks, not the county) if someone makes a complaint on the same day, which I am told rarely ever happens. The State Parks have the power to end this ridiculous regulation. Instead of having some dumb-ass hybrid policy, they could remove ALL doubt by simply making it a perfectly legal clothing optional designated area. No harm no foul and no more controversy.
The current state of the law in California and in California counties is irrelevant: bad law should be invalidated or changed. The same applies to bureaucratic policies.
1. Nudity in areas reserved for nudity harms no one.
2. Nudists pay taxes, more taxes than the average citizen.
3. Therefore, nudists deserve their proportionate share of public recreational facilities.
In a fair world, there’d be nudity-permitted hours at public pools, nudity-permitted tennis courts, and nudity-permitted sections of beaches all along the coast.
And, in a fair world, every five or ten years the nudity-permitted hours or boundaries would be adjusted according to usage. For example, if there’s heavy use of nudity-permitted tennis courts and light use of nearby clothing-required courts, more courts would be designated as nudity-permitted.
Of course, it’s not a fair world because most Americans, in California and elsewhere, flunked the kindergarten unit on sharing. The majority of Americans insist on using the power of the majority to prohibit others’ harmless acts — just because such acts violate the so-called ‘morality’ of the majority.
Quite simply, most Americans are opposed to harmless freedoms for others. It’s the mentaliy of “If I don’t like it, you can’t do it.”
@Jen- Great points Jen! Prop 8 for example maybe?? People suck. Persons are awesome….but people suck.
Jennifer, I’d like to know where you get your statistics from that nudists pay more taxes than the average citizen. Not saying it isn’t true, just would like to know the source.
And as far as paying more=getting more, that is the least democratic thing I have ever heard. With that line of reasoning, it would mean that rich people would get proportionally more services than poor people.
Unfortunately, majority rule has nothing to do with “sharing” but is designed to reflect the views of exactly that, the majority of tax payers. Sometimes we get it wrong, but we also get it right, too.
It seems that you see people that disagree with you as childish and selfish, and that isn’t going to win anyone over to your cause.
Perhaps public nudity seems harmless to you, but for other people, it isn’t. Why can’t that difference of opinion be respected? What makes you right and everyone else wrong?
Gina: Nudists, on average, are better educated than the average American, earn more than the average, and thus pay more in taxes than the average. There are numerous sources for that. Google is your friend.
I said nothing about getting more than our share. We do think we shouldn’t get less than our fair share.
Our “proportionate share” means our share according to our numbers. I explained that carefully in my example. For you, I’ll try again. If nudists are (say) 10% of the beach-using population, 10% of beach footage should be designated as nudity-permitted.
The founders tried as best they could to write a constitution that prevented the majority of the moment from trampling the rights of minorities. Unfortunately, the majority today isn’t about to live up to the spirit of the constitution. The majority won’t allow others to do anything the majority doesn’t want to do themselves. You aren’t harmed by the existence of a section of beach set aside for nude use, yet you clearly don’t want nudists to have one.
I don’t see the textile majority as childish, only as childishly selfish.
I said nothing about public nudity. I spoke only of setting aside some publicly owned recreational facilities for nude use. If you, for example, don’t want to see nude people at the far south end of San Onofre State Park, you shouldn’t go to the far south end. I don’t want to see textile types strutting around in colorful costumes, so I don’t go to the textile part of the beach. That seems to me like a fair arrangement, but you appear unwilling accept it. You want it ALL for you and yours.
Have a nice cloth-constricted day :-)
Jenny
Jennifer, I actually AM having a rather fabulous cloth-constricted day!
It seems your condescension is off the charts, and if you provide “facts” in a comment, YOU should be prepared to back them up. They are your claims, not mine, and the burden of proof should not be transferred to me.
And you also failed to answer my question as to why you are right, and yet everyone else is wrong.
Clothes, you see, have been around for centuries, and so I hardly think that qualifies us textile types as an “of the moment” majority. Frankly, I’m thinking the framers of the Contstitution had more important things than public nudity on their minds when they were doing their thing.
Again, as I said, but I’ll explain it again for you, if we follow your logic, then all interest groups, and hell, why not certain ethnicities and income groups, would be expecting their “proportional” share of public facilities.
And sorry, it just doesn’t work that way.
It seems you have large problem with that, so I wish you the best of luck in getting that changed. :)
Gina, I want you to do the googling, because I want you to learn something about that which you so ignorantly oppose.
There’s no right or wrong about clothing or nudity. Which is “best” at any given time depends on personal preference and the weather.
Yes, clothes have been around for a long time, but nudity has been around far longer. If you’re going to insist that length of time is the crucial factor, you lose.
I’m cracking up over you saying, “… if we follow your logic, then all interest groups, and hell, why not certain ethnicities and income groups, would be expecting their “proportional” share of public facilities.”
All those “groups” already have full use of all public facilities. If you agree to change the law so nude people have full use of all public facilities, then there’s no need to set aside areas for nude use.
Are you prepared to help me achieve that?
:-)
Jenny
Zing! :)
I can’t believe I am jumping in here, but I need to know **why** nude sunbathing should not be allowed. I am still not clear on what the issue is with it.
Gina, I am not baiting you I swear, I just don’t understand and I’m hoping you can help me to! Why shouldn’t it be allowed?
Wow, Jennifer, you are truly trying very hard to ignore what I’m actually saying.
No, I don’t lose as far as length of time, I win as far as the fact that walking around nude in public is prohibited by law. I call that a pretty big win, actually, which is what your current problem is.
But the point was that clothes have been around for a very long time, and your claim that society’s view against public nudity as being “of the moment” argument was specious.
And again, the key word is “proportional” which is a term out of your comment. Nobody should be entitled to a proportional amount of a public space based on the taxes that they pay. As I said, special interest groups (like perhaps pot smokers) will be the next to demand a special area of the beach that is all their own. After all, they pay taxes too! By your definition, they, and also cigarette smokers, should all be getting their fair share of beach to the exclusion of others.
My main argument (and Jon, hopefully this answers your question) is that if people have sections of the beach, or tennis courts, or whatever, that they consider “theirs” then the area no longer fits the definition of public, does it?
I’m not trying to prohibit what anyone does in private, be as naked as you want in your own home or a private club! But once you enter the public realm, you are beholden to the rule of public law. Simple as that.
And no, sorry, I’m not going to help you change the law so that anyone can walk around nude any time they feel like it. That is my personal opinion, and it doesn’t make me ignorant to have it.
It’s just that people like Jennifer don’t agree, and thus are reduced to name-calling those with differing opinions.
Gina,
> No, I don’t lose as far as length of time, I win as far as
> the fact that walking around nude in public is prohibited by law.
I haven’t advocated nudity in public. I’ve advocated that some small portion of publicly owned recreational areas be designated as “nudity-permitted.” There’s nothing in the law that prohibits doing so.
> Nobody should be entitled to a proportional amount of a public
> space based on the taxes that they pay.
I didn’t say they should. I did say that all citizens, and especially taxpayers, should have access to public space.
> My main argument (and Jon, hopefully this answers your question)
> is that if people have sections of the beach, or tennis courts,
> or whatever, that they consider “theirs” then the area no longer
> fits the definition of public, does it?
You’re saying that beaches and tennis courts reserved for use by _clothed_ people don’t fit the definition of public. I doubt you can defend that.
I should add that clothed people are allowed in nudity-permitted areas. They just can’t complain about nudity there.
> I’m not trying to prohibit what anyone does in private, be as
> naked as you want in your own home or a private club! But once
> you enter the public realm, you are beholden to the rule of
> public law. Simple as that.
We agree on that. However, you’re missing some key distinctions. There’s no law prohibiting the designation of publicly owned areas for special uses. For example, we designate some publicly owned areas as “hunting-permitted,” while continuing to prohibit hunting in most publicly owned areas. People who aren’t hunters can go to hunting-permitted areas, but they can’t complain about the hunting. In exactly the same sense, we could (and have) designated publicly owned areas as “nudity-permitted” while continuing to prohibit nudity in most publicly owned areas. People who aren’t nude can go to nudity-permitted areas, but they can’t complain about the nudity.
This may come as a surprise to you, but we also set aside certain publicly owned areas for the _sole_ use of certain classes of people. Handicapped parking places come to mind. You may also have heard about public restrooms. Now, before you go ape (again), I’m not proposing that any publicly owned areas be set aside for use by nude people _only_. Hey, if the sun is hot, I often slip on a T-shirt. Moreover, we welcome visits by the clothing-addicted. Many such visitors soon realize that what they’ve heard about nudity isn’t true, and they decide to join in.
> And no, sorry, I’m not going to help you change the law so
> that anyone can walk around nude any time they feel like it.
No one has proposed that. I certainly haven’t. I’ve simply advocated designating areas (some beaches, some tennis courts, etc) where nudity is permitted. Clothed people could go to those places too, if they wished, but the couldn’t complain about nudity.
You see, in my plan, clothed people can come to areas where nudity is _permitted_ but nude people can NOT come to areas where garmentry is _required_.
That’s a real deal for folk like you.
Jenny
I have read the dialog above.
Things are very simple: California has over 800 miles of coastline and a reasonable amount of people who like sunning in the buff, myself included. A small portion of this caostline for these purposes seems reasonable. Even Ben Franklin enjoyed some time in the buff.
As we pass more laws we less have to engage in reason, hence the requirement to be reasonable goes away.
The use of San Onofre for nude swimmiming and sun bathing has been a PRIVILEGE for many decades. Once a privilege is taken away in this country it is almost impossible to get back unless the majority decides to change it (Prohibition).
Law or no law it would be nice if common sense, reason and fairness prevailed.