Every impartial survey taken in WA since the 1980s has shown public support for nude bathing, usually by about 2 to 1. The outer metropolitan City of Wanneroo, with a huge coastline, was being pressed to provide a freebeach. The council, confident that the proposal would be rejected, held a referendum to coincide with the local election. When they got a "Yes" vote, the council said they weren't bound by it. So much for honesty!

I have lived for some time in another outer metropolitan area, which does have a legal freebeach. Some time ago, a local paper printed a letter [writer's name not published] saying that this beach was dangerous for women and children. I phoned the police station and the council and asked their opinion. They both said that the freebeach was quiet and trouble-free. I got permission to quote both the police sergeant and the head ranger by name in a letter to this paper. The paper refused to print my letter. They were happy to print an anonymous lie, but would not print the truth.

When this beach was legalised, with majority public support [the professional survey, submission and petition figures were never publicly released, but I have them], It was publicly stated that it would help to attract tourists and provide local employment in service industries. But the council and local tourist office has done absolutely nothing about it. The freebeach isn't marked on any local maps or tourist leaflets and no info is available at our tourist office.

cont

Attitudes to nudity is a cultural thing. Every culture exposes different parts of the body and some are offended at different parts of the body. Victorian Christians and the Taliban found female ankles so arousing that for a female to show an ankle was considered offensive. Ancient Greek and early Roman women were forced to wear head scarves as so not to arouse the gods. Nudity and personal security are not an issue; women could wear a sack of cow dung and a paper bag and still be ogled or raped for exposing their eyes. In Islamic countries women are no more secure from rape than women in the west.

I think there is a place for nudity at specially zoned beaches but not most urban beaches. The reason is nudity is not in cultural context on urban beaches. In cities we formally dress to work and socialise, this is carried through to the beach where we formally dress to swim and relax, ie Shorts, Bikinis. If bathing costumes get so minimal that it barely covers anything then so be it, context evolves.

The worry that nudity attracts perverts is redundant simply because there will always be those who have immature attitudes to nudity. The same people are predators in society now regardless of what cladding the population wear. Perverts wether they are of sexual or puritan types need to be addressed as a separate issue

WA has either legal or recognised nude swimming areas at the tourist destinations of Esperance, Albany, Denmark, Dunsborough, Bunbury, Rockingham, Rottnest Island, Perth, Jurien Bay, Dongara, Geraldton, Shark Bay, Carnarvon, Coral Bay, Exmouth, Dampier, Point Samson, Port Hedland and Broome. Probably many more, known only to locals. But they are not publicised and it's not easy to get any relevant information. The first rule of marketing would have to be, If you tell no-one you've got it, then no-one will buy it. But try telling this to the so-called experts wasting taxpayers' money on failed marketing campaigns and see where it gets you.

Australia has tourism offices in both Britain and Germany. Many millions of Germans like holidays which include nude bathing and they are made welcome in Spain, France, Croatia and other nudist-friendly destinations. But Australia tells them nothing. The French govt tourism dept has promotions in London informing people of their nudist resort facilities. But Australia tells the Brits nothing.

The bleak British and European winter is our summertime. We're in the box seat to attract a huge number of sun-loving tourists to Australia and we do absolutely nothing about it. This isn't the fault of ordinary Australians, who are largely either onside or unconcerned about it. It's the fault of the so-called tourism and marketing experts, ignorant politicians and religious extremist lobbyists which Australia unfortunately seems to be stuck with.

Onya C.J. *ouch*.....

sooo.. you are a sexually resilient person huh ? Good 4 u.

I agree in one way... context has a lot to do with it. We don't get excited simply because a female can see our privates.. Doctor as an example.

As I thought I said.... the biggest issue might be from 'out'side pervs rather than inside participants...but.. having lived in indigenous societies where there is much more skin than here, I also know from the young guys that they are definitely alive down below when a hot chick is around.

Taliban ? sheesh.

There is nothing 'offensive' or 'evil' about our bodies (West) but our desires can be, and the thing which stimulates them is usually the old eye gateway.

"If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out" said Jesus to underline the importance of not looking wrongly at the opposite sex.

For those who wish to bathe nude....go4it... no biggy to me, but don't whine when young teenagers come along to spy you out :)

Sorry Boaz? Jesus nailed up on the crucifix not being able to pluck out his own eye for staring down at women’s cleavage? Nudity is not about Jesus; nudity is about born freedom versus skin cancer. In this case perverts wether puritan or sexual are the control seekers, we must not allow them to tell us what to do. To do so would be the same as allowing terrorists to change our way of life. ‘WE’ ourselves are intrinsically imbued with the right to be clad or not. Our social organisation, our social contract with each other is negotiation to how much skin we expose. The pervs have no rights on this matter wether Aroused Allen or Reverend Puritan. Aroused Allen should be dealt with by law and Reverend Puritan should keep his nose in his own business.

Religious Right

The religious right sometimes seem to have trouble with their knowledge of the very religious basis for their objections. In the second reading of the NSW Local Government Amendment (Nude Bathing) Bill 1996, Rev. Fred Nile said "The next heading in Leviticus is "The Penalty for Committing Sexual Sins". That chapter regards nakedness or indecent exposure as a sexual sin."

He cites Leviticus 20:17 as an example, quoting "And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity."

The puzzle here is why the bible should be going to such trouble to identify specific familial relationships when proscribing nudity. In reality, the text above is obviously a mistranslation and Leviticus 20:17 is really about incest. Something that Rev. Nile should have known, particularly as otherwise incest is not proscribed.

Voyeurs and Sexual Offenders

Unfortunately it is true that voyeurs and people indulging in sexual activity can be found at some clothing optional beaches. I think this is largely because these beaches tend to be isolated and are essentially law-enforcement free zones. It would be rare to see a ranger or police officer there. Nudists can be reluctant to call in the authorities for fear of having the clothing optional status revoked. There is also the problem that the nudists tend to be older than the offenders, and people committing offences are not above making threats. I have also heard claims of vandalism to cars when nudists complain. So people get away with their unlawful activities, and the problem grows.

In an article entitled "Flashing a problem at hand [1]", journalist Emma Tom suggested that voyeurs could be dealt with merely by photographing them, but I have not been able to get any support for the idea from the nudists I've talked to.

[1] "Flashing a problem at hand" The Weekend Australian, 12 Jan 2002, Page 18.