The nudist blogosphere make me facepalm once again

[Dan]

http://www.nudistday.com/index.php/article/how-nudist-clubs-can-filter-out-sex-offenders.html

[Ace001]

I don't think I understand why this makes you facepalm. Maybe you could explain?

[Danee]

I don't think I understand why this makes you facepalm. Maybe you could explain?

Me neither..that blog is a wonderful blog and they are supportive of us, as we are of them as I am sure you know. They link to us.

[Stuart]

It'd have to be carefully monitored, but it sounds a sensible idea to me. Its similar to the security you have in pubs & bars, where all the security staff in one area will keep in touch with each other, so if they throw someone out of their bar that's violent, they'll let all the others know to keep an eye out for them and not to let them in.

[Dan]

I don't think I understand why this makes you facepalm. Maybe you could explain?

The threat posed by sex offenders is negligible (especially since a lot of them don't deserve to be on the list to begin with) and there's nothing about nudism that warrants vigilance on that front.

If it is non-sexual as we claim, why should we fear sex offenders?

[Ace001]

I don't think I understand why this makes you facepalm. Maybe you could explain?

The threat posed by sex offenders is negligible (especially since a lot of them don't deserve to be on the list to begin with) and there's nothing about nudism that warrants vigilance on that front.

If it is non-sexual as we claim, why should we fear sex offenders?

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you asking why we would be vigilant of sex offenders because naturism is non-sexual? If that is what your asking then my answer would be we fear those who would use the nudity as a way to harm others in another capacity. No one wants to be violated in anyway or have someone they love violated.

I will agree that all sex offenders don't deserve to be on the list but we do have to fear those that are on that list for good reason. Nudity is not sexual but those who refuse to see it as nothing but sexual can cause problems for those just trying to enjoy themselves.

[Dan]

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you asking why we would be vigilant of sex offenders because naturism is non-sexual? If that is what your asking then my answer would be we fear those who would use the nudity as a way to harm others in another capacity. No one wants to be violated in anyway or have someone they love violated.

I'm saying that our vigilance should be proportional to the threat something represents. Sex offenders represent a negligible risk. The risks of slipping in the shower and breaking your neck are far higher. If the article was saying that nudist resorts should be careful not to admit ax murderers and other kinds of serial killers, it'd look silly but if we mention sex somehow it makes sense?

Having anti sex offenders policy makes nudism look sexual (even swingers don't have that kind of policies) for no tangible gain.

[Ace001]

Ok I think I understand now.

I would be careful in saying that sex offenders offer a negligible risk. I would say that there are not that many, and probably not that many that go to nudist resorts, but if one dangerous offender was let into a resort and did something bad the damage done to the people would be beyond measure.

It makes sense when we mention sex because people associate nudity with sex and so sex would be the biggest issue ( where would an ax murderer keep his ax? ^_^). The problem is not from the naturist perspective out, but from others projecting their association on naturism.

Having a sex offender policy doesn't make it sexual at all I think. I think it shows people want to have piece of mind. Many textile neighborhoods have anti sex offender policies, and they don't look sexual. It's purely out of safety and piece of mind. The policy is not saying we have sex so we want to exclude those who have committed some sexual offense. It's saying we understand there are those who will take advantage of people's openness to nudity and we would like to safe guard ourselves and our families.

Also again I'd be careful about saying there is no gain. The gain is having a piece of mind that when you go to these places you don't have to worry about someone doing something destructive. Piece of mind is one of the most important things in life.

[Danee]

Ok I think I understand now.

I would be careful in saying that sex offenders offer a negligible risk. I would say that there are not that many and probably not that many that go to nudist resorts, but if one dangerous offender was let into a resort and did something bad the damage done to the people would be beyond measure.

It makes sense when we mention sex because people associate nudity with sex and so sex would be the biggest issue ( where would an ax murderer keep his ax? ^_^). The problem is no from the naturist perspective out, but from others projecting their association on naturism.

Having a sex offender policy doesn make it sexual at all I think. I think it shows people want to have piece of mind. Many textile neighborhoods have anti sex offender policies, and they don't look sexual. It's purely out of safety and piece of mind. The policy is not saying we have sex so we want to exclude those who have committed some sexual offense. It's saying we understand there are those who will take advantage of people's openness to nudity and we would like to safe guard ourselves and our families.

Also again I'd be careful about saying there is no gain. The gain is having a piece of mind that when you go to these places you don't have to worry about someone doing something destructive. Piece of mind is one of the most important things in life.

  

[randomer909]

Ok I think I understand now.

I would be careful in saying that sex offenders offer a negligible risk. I would say that there are not that many, and probably not that many that go to nudist resorts, but if one dangerous offender was let into a resort and did something bad the damage done to the people would be beyond measure.

It makes sense when we mention sex because people associate nudity with sex and so sex would be the biggest issue ( where would an ax murderer keep his ax? ^_^). The problem is not from the naturist perspective out, but from others projecting their association on naturism.

Having a sex offender policy doesn't make it sexual at all I think. I think it shows people want to have piece of mind. Many textile neighborhoods have anti sex offender policies, and they don't look sexual. It's purely out of safety and piece of mind. The policy is not saying we have sex so we want to exclude those who have committed some sexual offense. It's saying we understand there are those who will take advantage of people's openness to nudity and we would like to safe guard ourselves and our families.

Also again I'd be careful about saying there is no gain. The gain is having a piece of mind that when you go to these places you don't have to worry about someone doing something destructive. Piece of mind is one of the most important things in life.

I agree totally with this! Well done mate! You've definitely becoming an avid poster here which is great to see!

[Dan]

I would be careful in saying that sex offenders offer a negligible risk. I would say that there are not that many, and probably not that many that go to nudist resorts, but if one dangerous offender was let into a resort and did something bad the damage done to the people would be beyond measure.

Let's not conflate too principles here. Probability-wise, the chances of an incident are negligible. Yes, if it happens, it is terrible. But it's not rational to be afraid of it. Just like it's not rational to be afraid of terrorism since it kills only a tiny fraction every year of what cars or the flu kills.

Utility wise, the extra scrutiny is a cost (nothing is free) that far outweighs the benefits.

It makes sense when we mention sex because people associate nudity with sex and so sex would be the biggest issue ( where would an ax murderer keep his ax? ^_^). The problem is not from the naturist perspective out, but from others projecting their association on naturism.

As they say on Wikipedia, [citation required]. My friends and TV tell me the main problem people have with nudism is that it isn't sexual. I even had a debate with my own father about it. Maybe we should start a new thread about that, I don't want to hijack the conversation....

Also again I'd be careful about saying there is no gain. The gain is having a piece of mind that when you go to these places you don't have to worry about someone doing something destructive. Piece of mind is one of the most important things in life.

I'd say that this particular fear is a cultural problem (which thankfully my culture doesn't have, not that we don't have other problems) and that kind of policy is trying to put the fix at the wrong place. Being able to stand on your own two feet without fear feels a lot better and offers better peace of mind than being a scaredy cat protected by an infective policy.

[Eric]

It's a facepalm for a lot of reasons that I can see:

1. The sex offender registry is a joke, including everyone convicted of everything ranging from streaking, peeing in public, and teenage lovers having consensual sex to sexual assault and violent rape. The idea that it serves any utility in filtering out bad people is laughable - the vast majority of people on it are completely harmless.
2. When you type a name in, there's simply no guarantee that any names you find in the registry are actually the person in question, particularly for common names like "John Smith". You'd have an exceptionally high false positive rate.
3. It's trivially easy for someone with malintent to circumvent this check. All it takes is a fake name & ID.
4. This assumes that all sex offenders have records, which is just false. It does nothing to stop any bad guy who hasn't yet been tried and convicted of a crime.

Further, the blogger is just wrong on at least one point. A nudist club is a private facility and the management is perfectly within their rights to reject someone because of a "gut feeling". As they're not places of public accomodation, they're not subject to anti-discrimination laws.

And finally, the blogger also seems to be promoting a police state and witchhunt mentality among nudist clubs, which I'd take exception with. While this policy wouldn't do anything to stop a determined ne'erdowell, it would certainly annoy someone like me enough to keep me from going.

[Dan]

it would certainly annoy someone like me enough to keep me from going.

It would annoy me too the same way it annoys me when stores ask to check the content of my bags (and since it's not a legal requirement for me to comply, fuck the store and their policies, I just don't stop).

It doesn't convey any kind of friendly feeling either. I'd rather have the feeling I'm at resort with welcoming hosts than with TSA agents.

Given the drop in memberships and visitors, I don't see how a resort can afford to annoy people.

[Dan]

I do know that there are some people on the sex offender list for some pretty BS reasons. However, just because of a few minority (hopefully minority) cases doesn't mean that a resort should just stop caring about screening people.

I did a search just to see how it works. I got 69 results for the name "John Doe". I'd say it makes the registry worst than useless as the only info beside the name that's provided is the city in which they live.

You can't reliably identify anyone with it.

[Dan]

Eh, the best shot is down the middle.  We all know the Sex offender list is bullshit, so nixing someone supposedly on the registry should not be done.  If nothing else, it should send up a flag to do a bit more research on the individual before letting them in and that is it.

If we go down that path, we should also request a blood sample to see if the individual doesn't carry some disease that would be harmful and could spread because that's a much more likely cause of harm.