The French police are currently probing one of Europe’s most famous nudist colonies for fires blamed on naturist “hardliners” that have destroyed three nightclubs for ‘swingers’ at the normally peaceful Cap d’Agde – a mecca for nudists in the south of France. “Fundamentalist” hard-line naturists are suspected of harbouring a grudge against the eschangistes, or swingers, who are drawn to the town by the promise of free sex. A so-called boite eschangiste, or wife swapping club, called Glamour, where couples engage in group sex, was the first to be razed in April. The next to be torched was another orgy venue, Palme Re, followed by the Tantra club and Zen, its neighbouring bar.
The nudist colony has had a crime rate dominated by cases of sexual exhibitionism which has required the local gendarmerie (police) to deal with complaints leading to people being charged and convicted for lewd and improper behaviour. Naturists who believe that nudity is a healthy choice of lifestyle and nothing to do with sex, have clashed with the eschangistes, who are attracted to nudist camps by the prospect of multiple sexual partners.
Some in Cap d’Adge attribute the fires to fundamentalist “mullahs of chaste nudity”, as one magazine called them, who have often harangued holidaymakers venturing onto nudist beaches in bathing costumes. The intolerance of some naturists towards costume wearing holiday makers and those who believe in sexual permissive lifestyle, has shocked the community.
SPCS President John Mills says:
“The Kapiti Coast District Council, which has been harangued by fundamentalist so-called “naturists” demanding by-laws be created to establish their ‘rights’ to go nude on public beaches, should take note of the French d’Agde nudist colony disaster. The proliferation of offensive sexual exhibitionism, plethora of sexually transmitted diseases, problems with marrriages and relationship breakdown, pernicious sex crimes and public unrest, can all be traced in part to the negative impact of public nudity and gratuitous displays of lewd behaviour. Those wanting to live the nude lifestyle should join private clubs where they can ‘police’ themselves without inflicting costs on our tax-payer funded police force whose hard-working members have better things to do than chasing up exhibitionists on beaches who commit lewd acts and indulge in indecent exposure”.
See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5213341.ece
You have the nerve to call the naturists “fundamentalists”? That’s a laugh. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Ash
“Mullahs of chaste nudity” is the term used in the Times article to describe those extremist naturists (=nudists) who are suspected of torching swinger clubs and those purist naturists who harangue beach-goers who dare to wear togs on designated clothese-optional (nude) beaches. Mullahs are Islamic fundamentalist Islamic leaders who often harangue their women folk to cover up their faces and exposed flesh. The Times, if it has escaped you, is suggesting that naturists who exhibit extreme intolerance to those who opt for clothes and victimise those who opt for the swinger life style; are indeed fundamentist in ideology or philosophy. Is this beyond your comprehension? Or are you still on the floor laughing inside your potty or is it your kettle?
Well looks like my last comment was deleted. Seems odd for naturists to oppose people who wish to wear clothes at the beach. And no- that’s not beyond my comprehension. I iz an ed-yoo-kayt-id man. As for the nudist beach controversy in Kapiti, I don’t care about it one way or the other. Personally, I always have and always will wear togs and a t shirt at the beach, but I have no moral objections to nudity. It’s not my job to tell others how to live their lives.
I wish to make a formal complaint about the manner in which the Times Online article about Cap D’Agde has been judiciously and carefully edited by SPCS in order to present a totally distorted impression of the story and of the actual events at the resort. Either the story should have been omitted and just linked to, or it should have been quoted in full to allow the reader to gain the full context of the article. Anyone who does not follow the link to the actual Times article is most likely to form the view that it is the naturists that are the exhibitionists, swingers and are ‘promising free sex’.
It is not a valid defence to claim, as a defence to my complaint, that you have only lifted text from the article. Of course that is the case, but it is what is left out and how the included text is then linked that makes all the difference and changes the context.
This has clearly been done to suit the agenda and to prepare the reader for the comments by John Mills in support of SPCS’s anti beach nudity position.
Let us examine John Mills’ comments on the story: –
“The Kapiti Coast District Council, which has been harangued by fundamentalist so-called “naturists” demanding by-laws be created to establish their ‘rights’ to go nude on public beaches, should take note of the French D’Agde nudist colony disaster.”
For a start, this is blatant reversal of the truth. The truth is that the council has actually been harangued by fundamentalist anti-nudity objectors, who have been misled by mischievous and distorted reporting by the Dominion Post. The council had to take out a full-page newspaper advert in order to address this problem. Refer to the post by Joyce Fleming on the forum on November 6th, 2008 3:23 pm
The next statement: –
“The proliferation of offensive sexual exhibitionism, plethora of sexually transmitted diseases, problems with marriages and relationship breakdown, pernicious sex crimes and public unrest, can all be traced in part to the negative impact of public nudity and gratuitous displays of lewd behaviour.”
…is deliberately construed to imply that all these vices are the expected and normal consequences of a naturist environment and lifestyle and are to be expected in a naturist resort. The truth is that these vices are all the product of the prudery of the anti-nudity culture, which creates dysfunctional and disturbed people, caused by the perverted ideology of shame and guilt about the human body. All of the vices referred to occur in the non-nudist society. That is such an obvious point.
The concluding statement: –
Those wanting to live the nude lifestyle should join private clubs where they can ‘police’ themselves without inflicting costs on our tax-payer funded police force whose hard-working members have better things to do than chasing up exhibitionists on beaches who commit lewd acts and indulge in indecent exposure”.
Err…… Isn’t that exactly what some naturists at Cap D’Agde have just done? They have just decided that their tolerance has been abused for too long and by too many deviant infiltrators who have no interest in naturism and its ideals but who see tolerant and peace-loving naturists as a soft touch to provide cover for their vices and fetishes.
(Quote from the article: “Recently, police had to intervene as a man whipped his wife on the balcony of an apartment for the gratification of spectators in the courtyard below.”)
Well it is high time that naturists started to assert their rights to a decent environment and ‘police’ these deviants out of town. I hope that the naturists continue to hound the deviants and spectators off the site, so that the place can return once again to its ”normally peaceful” naturist family oriented state. (As it has been for the past 30 years).
The biased and distorted propaganda and disinformation issued by SPCS and John Mills concerning the Times article is to be thoroughly deplored.
Mike
You state: “The truth is that [1] the ]Kapiti] council has actually been harangued by fundamentalist anti-nudity objectors, [2] who have been misled by mischievious and distorted reporting by the Dominion Post.”
Please present your hard evidence to prove statement [1] and define what you mean by “fundamentalist”. Are you using this as a pejorative slur and/or seeking to demonstrate that you are not to be considered as a “fundamentalist” in any shape or form (nude or otherwise)
We used the term “fundamentalist” to clarify the Times-on-line use of the term “mullahs of chaste nudity”. By the way do you consider yourself part of this naturist purist fundamentalist brigade?
Given your obvious outrage over the distortions and mischief-making by the Dominion Post over your naturist-nude beach campaign, can you please inform us as to whether you have raised any “formal complaints” with the Dominion Post over its malignant reporting. We have seen no letters to the paper under your name over this serious concern of yours. We heard that a nude protest march on a Kapiti beach over the claimed false reporting was suggested by a local naturist, but it received no support from any of the councillors in favour of nude beach zones – so was called off.
You refer to “The biased and distorted propaganda and disinformation issued by SPCS”. This is a most serious accusation. We are sorry you feel this way and choose to use such inflammatory language (but hey – it’s a free country).
You say our summary of the French report implies that it is “the naturists that are the exhibitionists, swingers and are ‘promising free sex’”.
We do not believe that any balanced reader could fairly and reasonably come to this conclusion. The naturist fundamentalists (“mullahs”) are those identified in the Times report as regularly haranguing those who venture onto nudist beaches wearing togs and accusing ‘swingers’ of coming to the resort only for the purpose of engaging in (‘swinger’) decadent behaviour.
‘Swingers’ are clearly identified as those who are drawn to the resort because of their assumption – misguided perhaps – or belief that free sex is on offer. We did not state it was on offer from the naturists. Clearly swingers seek out fellow swingers (whether they be nudists or not).
Repeat: We did NOT say or imply that it is the “mullahs of naturism” who were offering free sex.
Mike, did you know that the nudist section of Cap D’Agde is surrounded by a high barb wire fence. Exhibitionists and voyeurs (you call them “deviant infiltrators”) are being allowed by officials to enter this zone of ‘pure freedom’ at the entry check points, but are told that cameras and videos cannot be used to record those who are are not part of their family group. However, pictures of nude “mullahs of chaste nudity” and their young children are reported to be regularly posted on internet sites. Yes voyeurism, nudity and naturalism have coalesced into a roaring internet money-making industry.
Is money-making at the heart of the push to get nudism established along the Kapiti Coast beaches? What do you think?
My statement: –
“The truth is that the council has actually been harangued by fundamentalist anti-nudity objectors…….”
Was intended as a direct riposte to your statement: –
“The Kapiti Coast District Council, which has been harangued by fundamentalist so-called “naturists”
….. to show that “fundamentalist” can be applied equally to either side.
As regards he definition of “fundamentalism” MSN Encarta provides one: –
fundamentalism [ fúnd? mént’liz?m ]
noun
Definition:
1. movement with strict view of doctrine: a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine, especially as a return to former principles
2. support for literal explanation: the belief that religious or political doctrine should be implemented literally, not interpreted or adapted
So on this basis I do not consider myself or any naturist a fundamentalist and neither do I consider the anti-nudity objectors fundamentalists. Naturism is not a political or religious movement and doesn’t have an authorised doctrine or manifesto.
I would like to propose that we banish the terms “mullah” and “fundamentalist” from our debate. These terms were introduced by the Times Online article, merely to inject an undercurrent of sarcastic humour into the article.
I have not complained to the Dominion Post because I have not had a problem with what it has written. If I tried to take newspapers to task over what they print I would have far more work than I could possibly cope with. It is others who have been spurred on by the Post to take action and complain to the council. I do not have a problem at all with the Kapiti Coast Council; I think that they seem to be a level-headed bunch. In retrospect I wish that I had made a submission to the council that it should not to be ‘browbeaten’ by the ill-informed, ignorant but very vocal objectors. The only reason that the objectors appear to be in the majority is that the majority of the public are too complacent or disinterested. If everyone did get equally involved, (surveys have shown), the objectors would in fact be outnumbered by the sum total of those who are either OK with beach nudity anywhere or are OK with it in defined areas. I will have to try to locate that survey, carried out in NZ, (it was published on Yahoo a while ago – maybe someone else can help with this).
I accept your comments that you did not mean to imply that it was naturists that were offering “swinging” and “free sex”, but rather people who are primarily interested in those activities.
I have good knowledge of the Centre Helio-Marin naturist resort at Cap D’Agde, having had very enjoyable holidays there, in the 1980’s and 1990’s. That was before all these unfortunate shenanigans were visited upon the place. The resort is quite unique – a custom-built naturist resort that caters for up to 40,000 people (nearly all Europeans) in the peak summer months, in hotels, apartments, campervans, tents, caravans. It has everything a town of that size would have, bars, restaurants, cafes, supermarkets, banks, all kinds of shops, including clothes shops (yes, in a naturist resort….!!). As well as a marina, sports facilities and three lovely swimming pool complexes. Its long 2-3 KM beach is open at the north-east end, and the naturist area doesn’t stop abruptly, but blends from naturist through to a mix of naturist and non-naturist through to non-naturist. Those swingers and fetishists that get into the resort do so quite easily because they do not declare such intentions at the entrance gate and they don’t look any different at the gate.
The barbed wire fence is meant to deter opportunist thieves who would find the tents and caravans easy targets when the families are at the beach. The resort is certainly no fortress and there are a large number of walkers, clothed and nude, in both directions with little indication where the naturist beach actually ends.
As to your comments on money-making, some interesting facts are: –
There are hundreds of thousands of naturists in the UK and an estimated 20-25 million naturists living on mainland Europe. Nearly all Spanish beaches are clothing optional except within town boundaries. The same applies to Danish beaches, those on Fuerteventura (Canary Island), and many French beaches. are clothing optional. Also, Croatia has many clothing optional beaches as well. The USA has fewer beaches since its naturist industry is very commercialised, and its size can be estimated by the fact that it generates over US$400Million per annum. In Europe you could not visit all the naturist resorts and beaches in a lifetime of holidays. Even the former communist countries had many naturist beaches on the Black Sea resorts. The size of the naturist financial market in Europe is far, far greater than the USA’s.
Now, are all these millions of beach-loving naturists (of all ages, singles, families), all perverts and are they all misguided and corrupt?
The fact is that every country in the world (bar none, I’ll wager) including all European countries, have virtually identical anti-indecent exposure behaviour laws as NZ’s Summary Offences Act (1981). Yet all these millions of people happily enjoy beach naturism and have done so for decades. The difference between free countries and totalitarian regimes is in the way that this law is interpreted.
The sad fact for the anti-nudity objectors is that (thus far) the NZ authorities have CONSISTENTLY interpreted the indecent exposure law, as far as simple non-sexual nudity is concerned, in the same way as most of Europe does. As long as this continues, then NZ is a free country. The day this changes is the day that NZ ceases to be a free country and becomes a totalitarian Police State.
The basic error in the SPCS argument is to equate bona fide naturism with depravity. The opposite is the case. Could I ask readers of this “debate” to check the website of Free Beaches New Zealand Incorporated?
http://www.freebeaches.org.nz
Joyce,
SPCS does not equate bona fide naturism with depravity. On what basis do you make this claim? It seeks to protect the rights of children, young persons and others to NOT be exposed to those determined to flout the law by engaging in “indecent exposure” in public places. It encourages bona fide naturalists to join private clubs that cater for naturist lifestyles.
Mike
Oh dear oh dear! Sadly, you have now outlawed the use of “sarcastic humour” from this very fruitful debate. This appears to be at odds with the very best of rigorous and legitimate debating techniques!
What debating nicety are you employing in your latest comment when you refer to Kapiti Coast councillors who have been approached by residents raising their concerns over the proposed nudist beach zones as having been “… ‘browbeaten’ by the ill-informed, ignorant [and] very vocal objectors”?
Is this outburst just another example of your “direct riposte” you refer to – trying to counter SPCS’s observation that some naturists have harangued the concillors on this subject – seeking to win over those you suggest are unenlightened and ignorant on the issue of naturism.
You wrote: “… (thus far) the NZ authorities have CONSISTENTLY interpreted the indecent exposure law, as far as simple non-sexual nudity is concerned, in the same way as most of Europe does”.
We assume you are refering to s. 27 of the Summary Offences Act (1981) relating to “indecent exposure”. Sorry Mike – you are quite wrong to claim and/or suggest that when the police charge offenders under 27 they make a distinction between “non-sexual nudity” and sexual nudity. No such distinction is recognised in law. What do you mean by this ‘distinction’ you highlight?
You claim that NZ would immediately cease to be a free country and instead become a “totalitarian Police State” if it applied the law against those who commit “indecent exposure” in a public place … “The difference between free countries and totalitarian regimes is in the way that this law [on indecent exposure] is interpreted.”
Are you not being just a lttle bit melodramatic, gradiose, deluded and obsessive? Have you seen too much midday sun?
Your description of “the Centre Helio-Marin naturist resort at Cap D’Agde” and its barb wire enclosures was lovely. Those charmed by such wonderful freedoms you outline so colourfully will want to depart in their droves from the totalitarian regimes they suffer under and head for the barb-wired entry points atCap D’Adde nudist colony with sun-cream in hand. If they can get past the guards they wil truly be in ‘paradise’.
Mike, are you an employee of Free Beaches New Zealand Incorporated as we suspect Joyce might be also? If you know anything about this hobby group can you tell us how many adults, children and young persons are paid up members and their gender and/or ‘sexual ortientation’.
PS Thank you for your concession … noted when you wrote:
“I accept your comments that you did not mean to imply that it was naturists that were offering “swinging” and “free sex”, but rather people who are primarily interested in those activities.”
Talk about misinterpreting us!
Likewise we understand that you probably don’t really believe that the many millions of people on the planet (probably the vast majority) who do not share your views on naturism are all “ignorant” and “ill-informed”.
This is one of the funniest articles I’ve seen in a long time. However, it’s even funnier to see how social conservatives all over the world get so worked up about issues that have extremely minimal overall impact on society as a whole whilst at the same time ignoring the larger issues that affect the whole of society.
Hi, there is a big BIG difference between Naturism>Nudity and Swingers.
Nudity is a factor of Naturism, Naturism is healthy, Natural and self revitalising.
Naturists practice Naturism only for that cause.
Swingers or Swinging couples have a different agenda, which is purely for sexual pleasure.
These two should not mix, they should each have their private spot.
There is nothing sexual about naturism.
As simple as that.
A naturist does not get sexual pleasure when he sees someone else Nude.
A swinger does.
I am against mixing naturists and Swingers, they go diferent directions.
Alittle caressing or kising will not hurt anyone but public sex is merely disgusting except for the ones who do it.
NOT the case with Naturism.
Thanks.