As part of trying to be more involved in supporting naturist events, I recently went on a clothing-optional forest hike with a group of naturists, my first naked hike and a bucket list item to tick off. The hike was planned for the day after the recent local WNBR (World Naked Bike Ride) event which was also on my bucket list, so the weekend was exceedingly productive in terms of naturist engagement and trying new things.
Most if what I would say has already been covered in comments however I would say "there is actually nothing wrong with a group of people walking naked in a forest. It might be unexpected but there is nothing wrong with it.
First off and separate from anything else, over the past 10-15 years there seems to be a slowly growing portion of the population that may not meet the clinical definition of 'hypervigilant' but nonetheless is vigilant to a signficant degree above & beyond what the situation warrants. In my experience people in this state are rarely able to have a coherent conversation any topic.
Secondly, the kids clearly weren't bothered by the naked hikers or they'd've been holding their heads down. The mother also clearly wasn't, else she'd've been concerned with her kids.
This brings us to the father. If he were actually concerned for his family, he'd've focused on them and only watched you to make sure you all stayed on the path. That he didn't suggests to me he was doing a performance piece. He saw what in his mind was a pretence to pretend to be outraged and throw some of his weight around.
Lastly, there's his announcement that you were all on a 'family' trail. 'Family' as an adjective really doesn't work. The fact that his meaning was clear from context doesn't make it start working. His use reminds me of a news article I saw many years ago in which a religious evangelical man stated he refuse to exercise because he found exercise 'too worldly'. There's clearly something else going. Also, who is this guy to do any labelling to begin with and why does he think you'd pay him any mind?
The value of a clothed person amongst the group . I think at the end of the day clothed people will be our biggest supporters and stand up for us in many situation’s
Sorry to read you had to put up with a grumpy ranter, but from the sound of it he was defending a family that needed no defending - usually the way!! My encounters when on naked hikes (solo, no groups) have always been amicable, mostly a smile and a hello, occasionally a frown but no comment, sometimes a friendly comment related to the weather.
From what I hear and read from others that’s a fairly standard response; we fear a negative reaction, like your Mr Grumpy, but rarely get it - the rest of the world seems more accepting of use than we expect.
And the best reaction to the Grumpys is smile and pass on by, engaging with them is fruitless - you’ll never convince them they’re wrong so why descend to their level?
Most if what I would say has already been covered in comments however I would say "there is actually nothing wrong with a group of people walking naked in a forest. It might be unexpected but there is nothing wrong with it.
First off and separate from anything else, over the past 10-15 years there seems to be a slowly growing portion of the population that may not meet the clinical definition of 'hypervigilant' but nonetheless is vigilant to a signficant degree above & beyond what the situation warrants. In my experience people in this state are rarely able to have a coherent conversation any topic.
Secondly, the kids clearly weren't bothered by the naked hikers or they'd've been holding their heads down. The mother also clearly wasn't, else she'd've been concerned with her kids.
This brings us to the father. If he were actually concerned for his family, he'd've focused on them and only watched you to make sure you all stayed on the path. That he didn't suggests to me he was doing a performance piece. He saw what in his mind was a pretence to pretend to be outraged and throw some of his weight around.
Lastly, there's his announcement that you were all on a 'family' trail. 'Family' as an adjective really doesn't work. The fact that his meaning was clear from context doesn't make it start working. His use reminds me of a news article I saw many years ago in which a religious evangelical man stated he refuse to exercise because he found exercise 'too worldly'. There's clearly something else going. Also, who is this guy to do any labelling to begin with and why does he think you'd pay him any mind?
The value of a clothed person amongst the group . I think at the end of the day clothed people will be our biggest supporters and stand up for us in many situation’s
Sorry to read you had to put up with a grumpy ranter, but from the sound of it he was defending a family that needed no defending - usually the way!! My encounters when on naked hikes (solo, no groups) have always been amicable, mostly a smile and a hello, occasionally a frown but no comment, sometimes a friendly comment related to the weather.
From what I hear and read from others that’s a fairly standard response; we fear a negative reaction, like your Mr Grumpy, but rarely get it - the rest of the world seems more accepting of use than we expect.
And the best reaction to the Grumpys is smile and pass on by, engaging with them is fruitless - you’ll never convince them they’re wrong so why descend to their level?
That is an interesting interpretation. Jealousy at his lack of freedom is not something I had considered.
I'm not sure he would have been receptive to conversation, at least not until he had calmed down.
Thanks, although it probably wouldn't have mattered. We were wearing the best rain gear that you can get.