A petition demanding the government bans the World Naked Bike Ride (WNBR) for “the future safeguarding of children” has been picked up in the media, the child safety campaigner behind it claiming the nude events “allow perverts to be seen” and the latest London ride saw a family “come face to face with an aroused bike rider”.
The petition — complete with what appears to be an AI-generated image of a horrified father covering his son’s eyes as a blurry peloton of road cyclists ride through a park — has been covered by the Daily Mail and Metro in recent days but has only attracted 445 signatures (at the time of writing) since it was created four months ago by campaigner Emma Jane Taylor.
Speaking to road.cc, the World Naked Bike Ride London insisted its events maintain public support and said the ride “is primarily a lawful public protest for positive change” and “we do not behave badly”.
However, Ms Taylor claims the nude rides “simply allow perverts to be seen” and represent “serious safeguarding risks for children”. Reform MP Lee Anderson has backed her campaign and said “our streets have become a freak show”.
The WNBR returned to the spotlight this month after a motorcyclist was sentenced and spared prison having punched a nude bike ride participant in Colchester earlier this summer, 46-year-old binman Lee Turnage calling the cyclist “a pervert” and later attacking police officers called to the incident. One officer needed his ear glued back together following the assaults, Turnage given a 14-month suspended sentence after the court heard he believed the cyclists to be “sexual predators” and “perverts”.
The petition, titled ‘Stop the Naked Bike Ride from being in public spaces’, was set up specifically regarding the London event. Ms Taylor suggests the government should “sensibly act on safeguarding children, not allowing an event in public where people expose themselves”.
“Once a year we let adults roam naked around our streets for a bike ride that is campaigning against car culture — or something like that — no-one seems to know!” the petition states.
“The police cheer them on. Some male participants have been seen to be aroused. There are no specifics or demographics to who gets naked, anyone can join, and they do — and in fact this event is not just in the UK, it is everywhere around the world! I can’t get my head around it — where do they grab a coffee, toilet break, snack — where is the risk assessment for this activity and the focus on childrens (sic) safeguarding?
“Be certain they will be coming to your town next — and they have a green card to do so. How does that make you feel?”
Ms Taylor says she is “happy to be called a prude, Karen or snowflake” but “sleeps better knowing I have shared my thoughts on this event”.
“The Met Police help to organise the Naked Bike Ride event in London. Make what you want of this,” the petition continues.
“Several families contacted me after the last event with their concerns, with one family saying they had come face to face with an aroused bike rider stood with his bike at the side of the road. They weren’t sure this was a participant of this event, making me query the event and its future in public spaces. As the event grows it could lead to further difficulties around child protection & safeguarding. Why take that risk where children are concerned?
“Normalising naked public events simply desensitises developing children to exposure; confusing them when it comes to understanding what is right or acceptable or who to trust. Protecting children in a world where predators exist, by focusing on their future welfare is of great importance to the world.
“As a campaigner against child abuse, I have devoted my spare time to a cause that is close to my heart; safeguarding young people. I know what being a vulnerable child looks like in situations where adults inflict their dark side. For this reason, I know that not everything is as innocent as it seems, and therefore challenge conversations across the world to make people wake-up and think differently about events such as these.”
“A lawful public protest for positive change”
Speaking to road.cc about the petition, the World Naked Bike Ride London said the nude events “aim to attract attention to its themes by being a fun spectacle”.
“WNBR London is one of the longest-running campaigns for better, safer cycling in London,” a spokesperson said. “We’ve seen many improvements over those 21 years. The ride also campaigns on environmental and wellbeing issues. Some participants raise funds for charity, but the ride is primarily a lawful, public protest for positive change.
“The WNBR is a peaceful, lawful protest that intends to get its messages across by generating public interest. We want other road users and spectators to be pleasantly surprised and take notice. We do not behave badly!
“The ride aims to attract attention to its themes by being a fun spectacle. Riders do not block roads, or move slowly, or cause damage, or lock on to things, or climb things, or leave mess behind. It is a non-aggressive, lawful, campaign. Extensive route and organisational details are shared with the police, who we can rely on to advise or assist if there are problems. As well as our team of around 60 marshals, we also employ professional security personnel to help keep participants and spectators safe and legal.
“No part of our campaign is aimed at children. We do ask that any children on the ride are properly dressed, and supervised by a parent or responsible adult. Many naturist families would be offended if we said their children were not welcome.”
WNBR London says it has received support from British Naturism and positive coverage by TimeOut and Health and Efficiency.
“We don’t do our own research or have subject matter experts, but the weight of evidence shows that children benefit from seeing human bodies in a non-sexual context,” the spokesperson continued.
“Certainly, that’s what the many parents who interact with the ride believe. It is very rare to see a parent or child have a negative response. When it happens it seems to be the case that the child is not distressed by the ride but by the parent’s abnormal reaction. The British Naturism report has very detailed consideration of the issues and includes references to its sources.
“Our body positivity and body acceptance theme is all about having a sensible attitude to the human body instead of suffering from the angst of body image and peer pressure for abnormal sexual activity. We all have bodies, we are all different, and that’s Okay. According to 2022 research, around 40 per cent of people in the UK have indulged in at least one form of naturism, and the number has been growing.”
150 thoughts on “Child safety campaigner demands Naked Bike Ride ban and claims it “allows perverts to be seen”, but World Naked Bike Ride London insists nude events “a lawful public protest for positive change””
Quote:
I don’t think you actually need proof of permanent residency in the USA to go from town to town in the UK, do you? However hard they try, when stupid people put pen to paper they just can’t help exposing (pun intended) their foolishness.
Perhaps they should take the
Perhaps they should take the fifth?
It is pretty hilarious. The
It is pretty hilarious. The chances of a WNB coming to anyone’s town next is close to zero, they’ve almost certainly hit peak participation with the ones they’ve got currently.
But the petition needs to rustle up support from large numbers of people who are and will always be totally unaffected by it, so they’ve thrown this in to give them a reason to get on board.
I think the problem with all
I think the problem with all these petition websites is that they don’t give you the option of voting against the petition, if they did then a lot of the sillier ones would get shut down pretty rapidly.
Actual child abusers do not
Actual child abusers do not cycle, or walk, around naked. They are in homes and institutions, in a position of power over a child who almost certainly already knows them.
If someone intends to abuse children, they’re not going to draw attention to themselves by stripping off in public.
And in the vast majority
And in the vast majority related to the child.
This is a load of bollox this
This is a load of bollox this story ?
If the naked bike riders were
If the naked bike riders were all in a full-on TT position I might have a modicum of sympathy.
Aero recumbents…
Aero recumbents…
That might be a bit tricky
That might be a bit tricky for the male cyclists that are reportedly in a state of sexual arousal.
The result of seeing a pair of deep rimmed carbon wheels, perhaps?
Quote:
Ah – so it’s not actually the nakedness they object to – it’s the wrong people being naked? Could Ms Taylor provide a definition of what ‘specifics or demographics’ exactly they would approve of taking part?
Thanks to road.cc for
Thanks to road.cc for exposing this story. I find the coverage in the MSM disturbing – I’d like a broader view of the subject. I guess it’s hard to look at dispassionately though.
chrisonabike wrote:
Seems like a load of old cock to me…
Rendel Harris wrote:
Seems like a load of old cock to me…— chrisonabike
this column is gettting silly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANufwUPFm8
Guy in third row, blue shorts
Guy in third row, blue shorts and raincoat, looks just to be on his commute.
Aluminium can wrote:
I bet he’s completely naked underneath those shorts, raincoat and clothes
hawkinspeter wrote:
Rather a good quote from a Terry Pratchett book (read a long time ago so excuse any inaccuracy):
“After all,” said Nanny Ogg reasonably, “we’re all naked under our clothes.”
“I’m not,” said Granny Weatherwax firmly, “I got three vests on.”
Aluminium can wrote:
There’s a lady on a Santander hire bike about eleven rows back on the right-hand side as we look at it in a longsleeved pink jumper and ankle-length baggy white trousers who I suspect is getting rather more than she expected from her London tourist experience.
It’s actually quite an
It’s actually quite an apposite picture they’ve created to illustrate the petition – the paranoid and overprotective dad desperate to shield his child from the terrors of
aliens on bikesthe real world, while everybody else around him goes about their business utterly unconcerned and untroubled.The same thought crossed my
The same thought crossed my mind, he seems to be saying don’t look at those children behind us who are running and smiling and enjoying themselves!
Just like allowing men into
Just like allowing men into women and girls safe spaces, things like this allow perverts to openly flaunt themselves.
Why do people actually want to ride around naked? I dont get it.
My wife and kids were in london a few years ago on the same day at this and saw things children shouldn’t be seeing, especially in public. But it these days it seems my kids will be called the perverts for looking at the naked guys knob. What a world.
I don’t think it helps your
I don’t think it helps your case to write something untrue in the penultimate sentence.
What did I write that was
What did I write that was untrue?
Your penultimate sentence.
Your penultimate sentence.
Or provide evidence to support it.
“Seems” is doing a lot of
“Seems” is doing a lot of heavy lifting…
Or what?
Or what?
Or the hyperbole makes your
Or the hyperbole makes your argument less persuasive.
quiff wrote:
Disgusting – going round flaunting your hyperbole in public!
Not sure what that reply is
Not sure what that reply is supposed to show.
It is normal to back up a claim with evidence not merely assert something and carry on as though it were true.
I see in later posts, you make more assertions simply to attack other posters. You need to come up with coherent arguments on here, otherwise you will be challenged.
It’s been seen in the recent
It’s been seen in the recent “Sandie Peggy” court case and the current “Darlington Nurses” that the women not wanting a man in their safe space have been called out for “looking at other people’s genitalia”.
This kind of “pervert if you look” argument has been used over and over in other cases such as the “Will (Lia) Thomas” one where girls forced to change in front of a man were called perverts for noticing he had a penis.
One claim about adults and
One claim about adults and one very vague claim with no link.
You’ll never guess what
You’ll never guess what slartibartfast has just said….
What? Human bodies?
What? Human bodies?
You seem to have missed
You seem to have missed something very important about those “human bodies”…
WhichWayNow wrote:
You mean it’s less heinous if your children see naked men in private? Might want to rethink that one.
Ah, here we go, the usual
Ah, here we go, the usual twisting of words.
WhichWayNow wrote:
I know, twisting your words by quoting them exactly, terrible.
So, by your logic, you’re ok
So, by your logic, you’re ok with naked perverted men walking/riding around in front of children?
Mmm, says a lot about you that.
What is the evidence that any
What is the evidence that any of the naked men (or women) involved are perverted?
quiff wrote:
Don’t you understand? They are riding bicycles, they must be perverts. After all, they are nonces to a man even when they’re covered head to toe in lycra.
I’ve heard a lot of them are
I’ve heard a lot of them are naked under their lycra.
quiff wrote:
I know at least one who showers naked after they’ve been for a ride, even if there are children in the house next door. Disgusting.
Come on Rendel, do you
Come on Rendel, do you advocate for naked men to be around children in a public place?
WhichWayNow wrote:
A word of advice: as you appear to be new here, or at least someone using a new username, you should be aware that in general road.cc attracts quite a discriminating and intelligent audience. Trying to imply that somebody is a paedophile simply because they make fun of your stupid comments might work at the Daily Mail or whatever other hellhole from which you’ve crawled but people will see through it on this site.
And yet you twisting my words
And yet you twisting my words in your original reply to me was totally ok? Not insinuating anything at all?
Seems you don’t like it when someone twists your words but you’re happy to do it to others?
Hypocritical much?
What’s the evidence they aren
What’s the evidence they aren’t?
I’d say being naked in public leans towards the noncey end of the spectrum but you do you I suppose.
Seems like anything can be forgiven on this site as long as there’s a bike involved…
WhichWayNow wrote:
Naked ≠ perverted, and even perverted ≠ nonce.
You might not understand the desire to be naked in public (and TBH I’m at the prudish Brit end of the spectrum too), but it’s quite a jump from “I don’t understand it” to “they must want to molest kids”.
Mate, read your reply again.
Mate, read your reply again.
It sounds like you’re being a pervert apologist. It sounds like you’re saying wanting to be naked in a public space in front of children is ok.
This isn’t a good look.
Some, maybe most, but not all
Some, maybe most, but not all participants in the ride were naked. Perversion is characterised by sexual practices that are considered abnormal or unacceptable. Nakedness, while it may be unusual in modern urban society, is therefore not in itself perverted. Which is presumably why the ride is legal.
So I’ll go with “nakedness ally”.
WhichWayNow wrote:
Where’s the evidence you’re not? You should probably be locked away, just in case…
I’m not the one advocating
I’m not the one advocating for naked men being around children.
Or did you miss that bit?
Well that’s no guarantee. You
So you claim. You seem unusually obsessed by the idea though. And your refusal to provide evidence is very suspicious.
Well, call me a bluff old
Well, call me a bluff old traditionalist but saying men shouldn’t be naked around children in a public place usually points that person out as being less of a pervert than those advocating for men (who could be perverts) being naked around children.
So, which are you?
Rendel says it’s wrong to insinuate someone is a pervert just because they advocate perversion. So I will definitely not say you are a pervert if you think men should be naked around children in a public place. Nope. Definitely NOT saying that.
What is your view of the
What is your view of the naked women involved in this ride?
You do understand that this ride was simply in public (where children may be) don’t you? Because you’re making it sound like they deliberately went to hang out (as it were) around a playground.
Women can be perverts too but
Women can be perverts too but the vast majority of perverts tend to be males.
Being in a public place, especially London, in the daytime, is more likely to guarantee the chance of there being children present.
Being naked and allowing nakedness is more likely to guarantee there being perverts there.
WhichWayNow wrote:
I suspect there would be far more clothed perverts there watching the naked people go by.
Amazing how thousands of
Amazing how thousands of people being naked might attract perverts on both sides eh?
WhichWayNow wrote:
It is, or course, possible to be neither.
If anything, I’d say history suggests that those who get het up about public nakedness and the like are more likely to turn out to be perverts than those who are relaxed about it.
What history would that be?
What history would that be?
You fail to mention the ones actually being naked, in front of children. I’m guessing you’d put those people in the “good” column along with all the “nakedness allies” too?
WhichWayNow wrote:
Well I was quoting your words, so if anyone ‘failed’ to mention them, it was you. Making up stuff that other people have said seems to be your bag, not mine.
I’d probably just call them “people”. I’m not sure why you’d feel the need to go around arranging them into columns. Apart from anything else, I thought people’s columns was one of the main things that seemed to perturb you.
Lots of words but without
Lots of words but without actually saying anything.
Im saying it’s wrong for grown men to be naked in front of children in a public area.
It seems I’m stating something that goes against what most of Road.cc posters think.
A lot of victim blaming going on, a lot of “nakedness allyship”
As the saying goes “Good men stand up so that bad men stand out”.
A LOT of people have stood out in this thread. A lot.
WhichWayNow wrote:
And, it seems, the law.
It’s the law to be naked in
It’s the law to be naked in front of children in public?
Best tell all these clothed “weirdos” to get undressed eh?
WhichWayNow wrote:
And yet, you posted it all anyway.
See, you’ve added absolutely
See, you’ve added absolutely nothing.
Vacuous.
WhichWayNow wrote:
A LOT of people have stood out in this thread. A lot. — WhichWayNow
Only one person stands out on this thread and I am replying to him, everyone else seems to be in broad agreement.
Backladder wrote:
I’d have to check with the stats people but I think it might be a new road.cc record, thirty-eight posts without garnering a single like. Even Nigel and Martin used to pick up the odd one or two. An impressive achievement. I wonder if he actually rides a bike?
Rendel Harris wrote:
You can ask. “Hey ChatGPT / Gemini etc. when you post on road.cc do you ride a bike?”
Yeah. That tells you a LOT
Yeah. That tells you a LOT about the kind of people that frequent road.cc really doesn’t it?
Backladder wrote:
Plus, I thought it was men standing up that was worrying them – now suddenly they’re the good ones – they seem very confused.
WhichWayNow wrote:
I guess you’re getting some kicks out of being a wind-up merchant, or maybe somewhere there’s some self appointed moral crusade you’re on like so many of the others that try to add spice to their argument by bringing in children as you persistently do. I’m no expert on this but my job does require me to do Safeguarding training up to level 2.
So if you are remotely serious I’d urge you to consider the issues that people who do the job of children’s safeguarding day after day are talking about. It ain’t naked cycle rides. Examples here:
https://www.hants.gov.uk/socialcareandhealth/childrenandfamilies/safeguardingchildren
https://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/article/1436/Child-protection
Ah, another “look at the
Ah, another “look at the abuses over there, don’t worry about the abuses over here”.
I’d argue that if you see nothing wrong with naked people, none of whom have been vetted, being naked in front of children, then you should give up your child safeguarding role.
Abusers abuse. They find any way they can to exercise their perversions. All I’m saying is allowing thousands of naked men, let’s face it, men make up the vast majority of abusers and they have the most paraphilias, allowing them to ride naked in a city centre in front of children would fit in to more than one perversion.
It seems most on here don’t have the safeguarding element at the forefront of their opinions.
Ah, another “look at the
Ah, another “look at the abuses over there, don’t worry about the abuses over here”.
I’d argue that if you see nothing wrong with naked people, none of whom have been vetted, being naked in front of children, then you should give up your child safeguarding role.
Abusers abuse. They find any way they can to exercise their perversions. All I’m saying is allowing thousands of naked men, let’s face it, men make up the vast majority of abusers and they have the most paraphilias, allowing them to ride naked in a city centre in front of children would fit in to more than one perversion.
It seems most on here don’t have the safeguarding element at the forefront of their opinions.
We are at crossed purposes.
We are at crossed purposes.
I was meaning in my original comment where I said “my kids will be called peeves for looking at a blokes knob”
Slarti proved me right where others tried to call me out.
WhichWayNow wrote:
You mean – you’ve lost the thread … perhaps one or two about a driver who was convicted for a road offence?
Seems to be another road.cc Monty Python argument skit, where the subject is tangential to the dispute.
WhichWayNow wrote:
Yeah – we’re all just a bunch of pedalophiles around here.
Decided against one with kids
Decided against one with kids in it, just in case of misunderstanding.
This is classic “won’t
This is classic “won’t someone please think of the children?” hyperbole.
Yeah because god forbid
Yeah because god forbid anyone shouldn’t want children exposed to perverts being naked in public eh?
I did not realise there were so many pervert apolgists.
WhichWayNow wrote:
You seem to be thinking about children and perverts a lot.
This is worrying – please can you supply details so we can report you to your local safeguarding service?
Thank you
You seem to want to censor
You seem to want to censor anyone that wants to keep children safe from naked perverts.
I’d wager the authorities would have more of an interest in you than me.
This is in fact not specific
This is in fact not specific to the WNB at all.
You will recall that there was a widely reported saga some time ago, covered comprehensively and with salacious glee by our esteemed tabloid press, of the “naked rambler”.
He was in the habit, as the description suggests of going for countryside wanders wearing nothing but a backpack. He was reported numerous times and I believe arrested once, but ultimately no action taken because being naked in public in England and Wales at least is not in itself illegal
I think he did get into a bit of bother in Scotland where the law is a bit different.
But as it stands (no pun intended), the WNB events are not illegal because the law of the land does not criminalise nakedness.
And for all the prurience about the matter, it does seem telling to me that people who seize on “pervs” and abusers as a reason to take against it, those same people are generally notably silent about the situations of highest risk for abuse – which are overwhelmingly close friends or family, or those in positions of authority with access to children who take advantage of their ability to act inappropriately in private, and/or use their existing relationship with the child to pressure or persuade them to stay silent.
I remember the case of the
I remember the case of the naked rambler. I remember him saying he doesn’t want to expose himself to people, he wanted to be in the countryside, away from as many people as he can be, but still outside and be naked.
How does that equate to thousands being naked in central London during the daytime? I don’t see where the link is? Nakedness? I suppose. But it’s completely different from one man in the countryside to thousands in a city centre wouldn’t you say?
Also, the usual deflection technique of “ignoring where the bulk of abuse is happening” doesn’t work here. That’s like saying more abuse happens over there so we should ignore a smaller amount of abuse happening over here.
ALL abuse is bad. ALL abuse should be eradicated.
WhichWayNow wrote:
And we would welcome ANY evidence you have that ANY abuse happened at the naked bike ride.
Backladder wrote:
I actually searched for this to see if there was a scintilla of evidence for this pearl-clutching idiocy, there is no evidence. However, there is a huge amount of evidence that sexual abuse by touching, groping and sometimes much worse occurs at many events where large crowds of clothed people gather, music festivals, football matches, even the daily commute on the train. Look forward to the petition to ban clothed people from attending any event where they will get within touching distance of any other human being.
What about a child that’s
What about a child that’s been abused by a man. A woman that’s been raped by a man. What if either of them are offended by seeing thousands of naked men?
Are they pearl clutching?
Rendel Harris wrote:
There is of course one example – someone who assaulted a participant and a police officer because they equated nakedness with perversion.
WhichWayNow wrote:
Agreed, but
Is your concern that children shouldn’t see naked bodies (which is where your first post seemed to start) or that this sort of event might allow paedophiles cover to get off on being naked while riding past children / an opportunity to stop and abuse them?
The link is, as I stated
The link is, as I stated pretty clearly, that the relevant law is the same.
There is zero evidence that any abuse has happened at a WNB so nobody is saying “ignore” any abuse.
You are the one that is claiming there must be abuse happening because there are some people without clothes on. That’s a complete fallacy, unless you believe that being naked is in itself abusive.
It feels rather likely that this is in fact what you think – but legally it is not. And I would say that morally it is not either – and that it is in fact demeaning to victims of actual abuse to suggest that it is.
Saying you want a ban on WNB because you care about stopping child abuse makes about as much sense as the people shouting outside asylum hotels and pretending it’s because they care about preventing rape.
I’d say that being naked in a
I’d say that being naked in a public place where children are present is completely wrong. The children have not given consent to see that.
Some perversions or paraphilia involve forcing on others in any way possible. Indecent exposure, exhibitionism, voyuerism, Candaulism. None involve actual touching but do involve being naked.
If you don’t think that there’ll be some of the participants in the WNBR that are perverts or are enacting their perversion then you’re either childishly naive or wilfully ignorant.
WhichWayNow wrote:
You may be right, and where enacting the perversion is an offence it can be dealt with (whether that’s in WNBR or anywhere else). But it is telling that for example that exposure is not an offence, only indecent exposure – it is only where public nakedness is intended for sexual gratification or to cause alarm that society has decided to prohibit it.
You are soooo close to
You are soooo close to working this out….soooo close…..
Then please do make the
Then please do make the missing link for me, because right now I’ve got stuck at (a) nakedness alone is not a crime; and (b) the law is already capable of dealing with anyone who commits an offence.
Blimey! This all got serious!
Blimey! This all got serious!
Anyway some people will want to avoid the sauna in Finland (not uncommon for a family to sauna together – naked obviously, although teens may at some stage decide they are uncomfortable…)
Or indeed holidays in many parts of the world…
It’s sunny but pretty chilly today; I’m quite happy to keep my clothes on (and the same in summer, to avoid burning).
Who do you think you are
Who do you think you are bringing your balance and tolerance round here?!
I always wonder how these
I always wonder how these people cope in spaces like swimming pools or beaches where people are, effectively, naked. I know swimming pool changing rooms tend to be all cubicles now but there’s almost guaranteed nudity too.
I don’t get why these adults are so unable to separate a naked body from sex. It’s like kids guffawing at naked bodies in text books but far more worrying.
Do they honestly think people are doing this to get their rocks off, or is there just a lot of projection happening?
What do you think would
What do you think would happen if you went to your local baths and swam naked in the children’s pool with children in there?
Its a world away in difference from wearing a bathing suit or being naked behind a locked changing room door wouldn’t you say?
How is it a world away?
How is it a world away?
It would be against the rules because those are the rules of the swimming pool. It’s not illegal to be nude in public spaces.
People walk around naked in changing rooms. In most of Europe people are naked on beaches/changing rooms etc even more. Are they all sex offenders or is it just that in other countries they’re able to see that human bodies are just human bodies.
Oh apologies, I have now read your other comments and can see your agenda. Just to say – if you think sexual predators are using bike rides once a year or changing their gender in order to assault women then I’ve got some news for you: they’ll do it anyway, they don’t need to hide behind these things.
If you join a gym or use a
If you join a gym or use a pool you are consenting to see naked bodies. There’s a high probability you’ll seen naked bodies.
Where’s the consent with the WNBR?
Have you considered… Not
Have you considered… Not looking? It’s not an offence to be nude in public, no matter what repressed pervs think
That would never work, how
That would never work, how could they get upset if they didn’t look?
Aaaand there you go!
Aaaand there you go!
Well done! Thanks. You have proven my earlier point that the ones looking will be the ones called the pervs, not the ones that are naked.
Hey @hirsute does this count as evidence of my point?
You’re literally sexualising
You’re literally sexualising all naked bodies. What do you think pervy behaviour is if not this?
No, I’m not, I’m saying by
No, I’m not, I’m saying by having a huge gathering of naked people it will attract perverts and those looking to gain sexual gratification from it.
What you are saying is that by looking at naked people, you class that as more of an issue than there being naked people there. In broad daylight. In central London. Where there will be lots of children.
The horror! What if those
The horror! What if those children inadvertently catch a glimpse of a… Naked body? In central London? Can you imagine the horror?
Just got god’s sake stay out of the art galleries, I dread to think what might happen. Scarred for life, probably.
You keep making these bizarre claims that people (men) are using these events to satisfy a perversion. No one else is agreeing with you. Do you suppose that it’s everyone else that is wrong and defending literal predators or is it perhaps you that’s overreacting?
And yes, I would say looking at someone’s genitalia is far weirder than someone being naked in a non sexual way.
Let me get this right, yourse
Let me get this right, yourse saying that if a child looks at a naked man in a public space, the child is the weirdo? The child is the perv?
Total victim blaming
Same as “wearing that short skirt and being out late at night, she deserved it”.
Shame on you.
If a child sees a naked man
If a child sees a naked man in a public space what do you think is going to happen to them exactly? I thought your issue was with sexual predators, not children seeing naked people. What possible harm do you think this is going to do? Are children who’ve visited nudist beaches now scarred for life?
You’re a really really odd bloke and I can only assume something’s happened to you to make you this way. I genuinely hope you get the help you need.
You don’t get the concept of
You don’t get the concept of consent do you?
Again, when your sympathies lie with a naked man, no matter what the reasons for his nakedness are, instead of with a child that did not consent to him being there naked, you have some serious issues you need to get sorted. I truly hope there are no children in your life, I would fear for them and what you would introduce them to.
I find it truly shocking that
I find it truly shocking that children are being exposed every day to people walking down the street while being tall. Those children did not consent to them being there tall. Something must be done about it!
I think you’re confused about
I think you’re confused about what consent means tbh. You seem to be stuck on this idea that naked bodies are automatically shameful and sexual. This is just a you thing and I’m sorry that whatever happened to you to make you like this happened.
Given that that was not at
Given that that was not at all your original claim, I’m going to guess the answer will be ‘no’.
Slarti disagrees
Slarti disagrees
WhichWayNow wrote:
Ah – we’ve reached the ‘outright lying endgame’ part of your arc already, have we?
Where? Where have I lied? You
Where? Where have I lied? You can quote the exact words where I’ve lied here.
WhichWayNow wrote:
Thanks, but I already did. Seems redundant to do so again.
WhichWayNow wrote:
I think it is you he is suggesting is a repressed perv and since we don’t know that you have seen the naked bike ride (it was only your wife and children mentioned as seeing it) then it totally fails to prove your earlier point.
A précis of the considerable
A précis of the considerable verbage, it would seem WhatWayNow would be OK if WNBR was women only?
Mr Anderson wrote:
Judging by his first comment on this thread, he would probably start frothing about whether it was being invaded by trans women who were really men in disguise trying to get into women’s spaces for their sexual gratification.
Judging by everyone else’s
Judging by everyone else’s comments on here I’d be worried that there are so many “nakedness allies” that are ok with naked men being near children.
Ha, “nakedness allies”, nearly as good as “maps” that one ?
Well, seeing as the are men
Well, seeing as the are men pretending to women and trying to gain access to women and girls safe spaces…
But, thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling, that’s now been stopped.
Much to your annoyance, I’m assuming.
Yeah, now instead you’ve got
Yeah, now instead you’ve got females with beards and more testosterone than you using the ladies because they’re biological females. Or would you rather they use the gents with all those awful sexual predators?
I’m sure you don’t need telling that trans people are far, far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the perpetrators.
You’re a weird dude, perhaps that priapism is limiting the blood to your brain or something?
Easy fix.
Easy fix.
Females/Women in one.
The other can be called the “open” as in open category. Men and trans of all sorts in that.
told you, easy fix.
Also, these “bearded women” don’t have penises so, you know, there’s that.
Why are you so obsessed with
Why are you so obsessed with genitalia? You realise trans men look like men right? You’ve definitely met them and never realised. Do you check the genitals of other men at urinals?
How are you planning to police these new toilets? What about women who don’t fit stereotypes? Masculine lesbians perhaps – do they have to use the ‘open’ toilets with men?
Trans men, who you presumably consider women, are expected to share bathrooms with men with penises under your rules?
I’m really not convinced you’ve looked beyond your prejudice and thought this through.
You realise trans men look
You realise trans men look like men right?
Seems improbable, when almost all trans women look like men
The evidence for it being
The evidence for it being true is that you even say this. It’s far easier to pass by taking testosterone. I know multiple trans men and did I not know they were born female I’d have no idea.
It’s funny because you’ve definitely met trans men and not realised.
It’s funny because you’ve
It’s funny because you’ve definitely met trans men and not realised
What’s funnier is that simply stating untruths with confidence makes them true. There are not many of these ‘I declare myself to be a …’ when they’re obviously not, about
Unless you live under a rock
Unless you live under a rock you have met a trans man. Maybe you do, maybe you haven’t. What is definitely true is that without looking at their genitalia, you would not be able to tell the vast majority of trans men were born female. But maybe strangers’ genitalia is just an obsession for you as it with all the other bigots.
Slartibartfast wrote:
Wait – are trans people defined by their housing choices too? Is this like the sometime poster here who wouldn’t let those who arrived by bike in to his house for a soirée?
Slartibartfast wrote:
In the 2021 census 0.1% of people identified as a trans man, so if a person leads a relatively quiet life – retired, say, or fulltime WFH – it’s perfectly possibly they could go many years without meeting a trans man, particularly if they live in a quite rural area (the proportion of trans people in urban areas is significantly higher). Sure, everyone’s probably been on a train or a bus, in a pub or at a gig where there have been trans men, but in terms of having met, as in introduced and spoken to, at one in every thousand it may not be as likely as you imply. For example, there are 49,500 people living in England and Wales who were born in Nepal, which is almost exactly the same number as the number of trans men, but to the best of my knowledge I’ve never met any of them.
But how would you know? That
But how would you know? That’s my entire point ?
You’re sort of basing this on trans men suddenly springing into existence, but this guy has presumably at some point in his life been, as you say, to gigs, on public transport etc and encountered trans men whilst having no idea. Perhaps ‘met’ is the wrong word, but it doesn’t really matter. He’s walked past, maybe even say next to (the horror!) trans men and had zero idea but believes, as most of these fuckwits do, that ‘they’d be able to tell’.
Slartibartfast wrote:
Your point seemed to be that wtjs had “definitely met trans men and not realised” (your words). I was simply pointing out that it’s perfectly possible that he might not have.
There are a couple of these
There are a couple of these blithering idiot, on and on ineptly making the same point, one issue nutters around at the moment. We just have to hope they’ll go away. My point still stands- men claiming to be women and publically describing themselves as trans are pretty much all easily identifiable as men, and people described as women on the video media who are obviously men are just that: obviously men. My theory is that there are exceedingly few XY individuals who are without medically defined disorders and who ‘identify as women’ who cannot be easily identified as men by most people. I don’t think they should be permitted to compete against women in sports which involve physical prowess, and I don’t think they should be permitted in women’s changing rooms and prisons. The question of toilets is more open to discussion. My guess is there are considerably fewer trans men even than trans women (I don’t think I’ve ever come across one of those, but I don’t move in those circles) and we could probably quickly tell that most of them are women. The effects of normal puberty are pretty hard to hide.
Is there an equivalent of
Is there an equivalent of Godwin’s Law for threads ending up in entirely irrelevant arguments about trans people?
Mods, can we ban this mad
Mods, can we ban this mad bigot?
Nah, he would just make up
Nah, he would just make up another reason to write endless posts in attempt to hijack the thread.
I look forward to seeing if
I look forward to seeing if this is a one-cause poster, or an old acquaintance who can spout freely on a new topic each day.
The way in which it addressed
The way in which it addressed Rendel in one of its early pieces of nonsense did seem to suggest a certain… familiarity.
Anyone turning up to read
Anyone turning up to read through the vast amount of comments – I wouldn’t waste your time – it’s a load of nonce-sense.
“…the rapist was seen
“…the rapist was seen cycling away from the area…”
Normal people – “We must find this filthy rapist quickly before he attacks again!”
Road.cc – “he’s a cyclist you say? I wonder what the accuser was wearing?”…”bet she looked at his genitals, the perv”…”what did she expect being out alone at that time”…
Sheesh, I did not know this site was nothing but pervert apologists. You learn something knew every day.
F@ck me, are you still piping
F@ck me, are you still piping on…
WhichWayNow wrote:
You won’t want to be back again tomorrow then…
Ah, Pervert Apologists – I
Ah, Pervert Apologists – I remember them. They came fifth on Opportunity Knocks years ago. There were some rumblings that the “clapometer”had been tampered with but nothing was ever proved. What a shame – who knows what heights they may have reached. They were invited to play at Woodstock but their van broke down near Abingdon, and they faded into obscurity. How sad.
perce wrote:
Didn’t they later release “Clapometer” on the B-side of their “At the drop-in-centre” single (along with “Bathroom burning”?)
Johnpeel.jpg
Johnpeel.jpg
perce wrote:
Abingdon does tend to have that effect on you.
I genuinely hope you’re ok
I genuinely hope you’re ok mate. You sound unwell.
Is it you, Graham?
I think the worst thing about
I think the worst thing about the WNBR is the opportunity for lewd double entendres between the riders:
“Can I squeeze your hooter Mr Hardsaddle?
“Of course Miss Pertbody. Be careful that it doesn’t get snagged on your ring.”
“Your bottom bracket must be well lubricated, Miss Pertbody.”
“Yes Mr Hardsaddle. I think I rode too quickly over those cobbles.”
“I’m going to pop into Evans Cycles to see if that young mechanic can look at my head top. Maybe he will have a longer stem I can try at the same time.”
“Are you still keeping your Brompton nice and clean Miss Pertbody?”
“Yes Mr Hardsaddle, although I can’t really work on it properly until someone can come round and look at my garage doors.”
“I must say, Mr Hardsaddle, your helmet looks very aero.”
“Yes, Miss Pertbody, I like to keep it well polished.”
Etc etc.
What people do with their
What people do with their genitals, how women manage one possible consequence of that activity, what genitalia people are currently sporting and what they were born with … and now the fact that children might become aware of this: what is the current anxiety all about?
Is it because we all spend increasing amounts of time in the company of computers we have come to sympathise with Agent Smith and are repulsed by our own biology?
What’s perverted about the
What’s perverted about the human body? Other than mine, which is really gross…
SecretSam wrote: