You can't be nude In your Home
p class="MsoNormal"I dont know if it qualifies me as a nudist but I do a lot around
my home in the nude.span /spanWhen I heard this
story I found it to be just one more transgression by the government on our American
liberties. It just seems that every day there something we are told we have to
do or cant do in our own home.
https://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1790464
span class="nonprint" SPRINGFIELD, Va. - The woman who reported to
police that a man in a Springfield home exposed himself to her and her
son has a different story than what Eric Williamson has told to local
media.
The woman told police it was 8:40 a.m. when she was walking her son to
school along a path between houses. She said they first spotted
Williamson naked in an open door in the car port of his home.
She also told police that Williamson then walked across the house to a large window, facing the way she was walking.
Williamson, 29, faces an indecent exposure charge after a passerby saw him in the buff in his own home making coffee.
Channel 5 reports the woman and 7-year-old boy who saw him naked
apparently had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path.
Williamson says he didn't know anyone could see him.
"If I stood and seemed comfortable in my kitchen, it's natural. It's my kitchen," Williamson tells Channel 5.
Williamson says his roommates were not home when he came into the kitchen and made his coffee.
Fairfax County Police say they believed Williamson wanted to be seen naked by the public.
Williamson, a father of a 5-year old girl, said he plans to fight the charge.
"There is not a chance on this planet I would ever, ever, ever do anything like that to a kid," he says.
Police say they are checking to see if there have been any other complaints.
A trial lawyer, who is not connected to the Williamson's case,
says the state will have to prove that Williamson knew people were
there for them to get a conviction on the charge that carries a
one-year jail term and a $2,000 fine.
/span
This is sad to see that being nude is viewed as wrong. Normally my morning routine has me getting out of bed doing my morning stuff, and after I shower I go to the spare room were I keep my uniforms. I turn the light on and get dressed for work. Just the other day my wife suggested that because it is now dark in the morning that I should be careful and perhaps close the blind as we do not want the paper girl to get offended should she happen to glimpse me getting dressed. This is not about me trying to be seen this is about not wanting to shower, get dressed, then go to the spare room to undress then redress again...sigh...
I guess bottom line is that regardless where you chose to be nude you must always be aware that if someone can see you they have the option of trying to interfere with what we may see as normal routine.
The idea of a tresspasser bringing charges because they can see you naked is absurd. If this individual was leering out the window or acting in a provocative or sexual manner, then I could see this as a case for police action, but this man was going about his business, not doing anything more obscene than making coffee, and the responding officers obviously over reacted. I hope the courts are intelligent enough to throw out the charges, give the homeowner some sort of restitution, and the tresspassing mother and child should be told to mind their own business!
What were they doing looking in his windows anyways???
I think it's absolutely right that if someone has to make an effort to see through your windows, they have no right to complain about what they may see. If on the other hand your windows are close to the street, or you know the paper girl / postman is due then you have to exercise caution. At risk of making myself unpopular, I don't think it is anyone's right to do anything that might offend someone else. I don't carethat we think it isn't offensive, the point is they might and we can't fighta battle for tolerance and acceptance on those grounds.
While you and I are in 100% agreement, do remember that the original poster is in the People's Republic of California, writing about an incident in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is absolutely right to be concerned !
The determination of "exhibitionism" in this case lies in the existence of an "expection of privacy". If the judge happens to rule that the "suspect" had no expectation, I'm afraid he might be convicted. It really boils down to how the judge wishes to interpret the law.
This fellow should have taken all precautions as not to be able to be seenANYWHERE on his property. Sure it's his home but that doesn't give him free rein to do as he wants. He was seen so it is his fault for not taking precautionary measures to safe guard his privacy. Sometimes we nudist don't think, as nudism comes natural for us and I think we should be aware of our surroundings.
I have to disagree with this statement, I don't feel a person should have to give up their freedoms because some one else doesn't think they should have a certain freedom. Fortunately the laws here in Texas support that. The laws specify being nude in public and lewd behavior.
As someone from CA, why the insult Curt? CA has become one of the most conservative states this side of Kansas. Try living here for 53 years, and you'd know, and not from perpetuating a tired old (and insulting) myth.
Don't take it personally. The phrase itself comes from a friend in Sacramento, and refers to many of the less desireable government actions originating in California, and spreading to the rest of the country. ( free government services for illegal alians, as an example )
Freedom in California seems limited to the politically correct. The intolerance of the "tolerant" is overwhelmingly obvious in too many places there.
It's not JUST California, but stereotypes do come about for reasons.
In this case, and in this particular instance, the question posed by an understandably puzzled non-US poster who obviously doesn't "get" the restrictive nanny state we have in the Good 'Ole US of A.
My libertarian leanings are no secret.
The pendulum may be swinging, but the earned stereotype will persist a while yet.
NudistMan55 said:...I got a notice from the townhouse administration that I could not attach anything to the outside of the house, as of course they wanted to keep the units looking all the same.
How very boring this world would be if we all had to live in a style that suited the personal tastes of some stodgy old administrator.
As to the rest of this topic...why is it so hard for some people to simply avert their eyes when they see something that offends their personal sensibilities?
So I suppose it would be called The Democratic Peoples Republik of Kauliforgnia.
ANYTHING called "Democratic Peoples" isn't.
All of the Republicrats are about the same, IMHO.
In the US of A it's a risk to go nude anywhere, including in your own home.
The prevailing attitude is to arrest, charge, prosecute, and let the jury sort it out later.
Too many people still think this is a "free" country, but such hasn't been the case for a long time, largely because freedom isn't free, and too many are unwilling to pay any price for it at all, being conditioned to "entitlements" and always having someone ELSE pay.
Yes, I agree, one should be able to be in any state of dress in ones own home as one chooses, or to hold wild sex orgies, or pretty much whatever outside of human sacrifice ( see the Wiccan Reed ) BUT if the uber-conservative Jehova's Witness happens upon your door at that moment, AND is offended, AND decides to make a stink for whatever reason, there will be hell to pay.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!