I feel so sorry for this man.

But he has been assessed and it has been determined that he isn't mad. He is just making a choice that the majority may not approve of, which is his right. As long as he isn't hurting anyone, where's the harm? I worry that he may be making himself vulnerable to attack, but we can't protect people from the consequences of their actions as long as they have the capacity to make decisions.

Oh dear - the man seems to be a mystery, doesn't he? I do believe he has a mental illness, isolated to that one particular issue. That is why standard psych tests see him as essentially normal.

As for flashers - my favourite was when I was an au pair girl in Vienna in the 1960s. A group of us girls - all foreign students - were walking down one of Vienna's wide pavements arm in arm, when a flasher confronted us. We all started to laugh, but one lass, a French Swiss girl, said to him "You can put that away right now - I've cut off much better specimens when I was nursing!" Of course, we really laughed then, and he took off at a run.

I think our foreign accents turned him on - quite a lot of locals loved to hear our accents. The world wasn't quite as cosmopolitan back then, so we were a bit different I suppose.

Johanna and bags I have been enjoying this too, when I starting reading it and read pammygrans post I couldn't stop laughing and the posts kept getting funnier I also suspect he is an exhibitionist and does this mean that all those who like showing off their bits will tell us they are not hurting anyone and start parading around naked. Perish the thought, I have seen a few wee willie winkles in my time!

Hmm I really meant to write wee willie winkies but they do have winkles sometimes. Damn you auto correct.

jo4, the joke, as far as I was concerned, was on gransnetters, not the pathetic naked rambler. Yes, he is pathetic. I expect the police are sick of him but they have to follow the "law" presumably, which says people aren't allowed to go around naked in public. Seems like a daft rule to me sometimes, when you look around at people's almost nakedness during hot weather. Most of them are extremely unattractive as, I dare say, is the rambler. Beats me why people think sex has anything to do with it.

To my surprise I find myself agreeing with pammygran's post 'pathetic jerk, get a life!'

In spite of posters recounting how they foiled a flasher in his intent to shock by laughing or saying something belittling, I still think people shouldn't be allowed to walk around with their bits on show.

And not only bits. I don't like to see elderly men walking around in string vests either, all wobbly white flesh with moles and all.

You seem to have coped pretty well with flashers but if I encountered a naked man on a country walk, I would feel embarrassed, uncomfortable and concerned for other walkers. I have quite liberal views about people's behaviour at home but, outside, I think people should abide by reasonable rules. I don't think a requirement to keep your bits covered in public is unreasonable. Not that it's going to happen, but I've just wondered how I would feel if I met a naked lady on a ramble. Possibly the same as meeting a naked man - but it is a nicer thought .

My view is that if a man out for a walk met a naked woman, if anybody was at risk it would be her.

If a woman out for a walk came across a naked man, if anybody was at risk, it would be her.

Just the way things are!

Or am I being old fashioned?

Indeed a strange world johanna when, in our society it can be offensive (to some)to walk around naked or to cover oneself from head to toe with only eyes revealed

petallus: I think it's a simplistic view and, dare I say it here, a stereotypical view of men. I suspect quite a lot of men, particularly of mature years, would find this unaccustomed and unexpected confrontation a challenge and their first thought would be that a naked woman on a ramble was mentally unwell or up to no good. He might well feel at risk and, unless quickly reassured by the lady in question, he might well be.

I had a strange experience in the little town of Vernet les Bains. I had been visiting an estate agent to look at property in the area and as I walked back to my car I passed the public wash-house. There was a row of deep sinks and three walls but the front was open. A woman was standing, completely naked, allowing the cold water to run over her head and body. I asked if she was O.K. and she just gave me an odd smile. It was November, and quite cold. I went back to the estate agent and told her and she rang the local gendarmerie. I had to leave for another appointment so I didn't get to know what happened. I was obviously very concerned for the woman's health and safety.
The strangest thing about this story is the reaction I got when I recounted it on an ex-pat forum. I received some really vicious comments, including some spiteful pms. I was told that I should have minded my own business, the woman might just have been taking a shower, I was an interfering busy-body, etc.
Fortunately, there were plenty of other people who rushed to my support, but it was a salutary lesson in the kind of people you can meet on forums!

I'm going back to talking about the naked rambler in particular. I was stitching away on a quilt just now. When I do this my thoughts can wander and 'settle', and memories can arise. I remembered a story my father told about one of his trainee teachers.

The young man in question had long hair. This wasn't an issue except that my father knew that the man's acceptance as a teacher might depend on his having a more 'conventional' haircut (conventional as the fashions of the 1970s day dictated, of course) when he went out into schools to do teaching practice. My father knew, from experience, that many headteachers would not welcome a long-haired man. He advised the young man of this. Not surprisingly, the young man was annoyed and said he wouldn't have his hair cut.

My father then asked him if this was a matter of principle because if so, as his tutor, my dad would have defended the young man's "right" on religious or other spiritual grounds (yes, I know! ). The young man scoffed and said Of course not! To which my father responded: "Well, it's up to you to decide what is more important – getting your teaching qualification and a job afterwards, or having long hair."

The young man had his hair cut.

My point with this story is that, judging from his behaviour, the naked rambler seems to think that wanting to ramble naked is more important than actually having the freedom to ramble at all by modifying his behaviour/appearance slightly to accommodate what may well be silly rules, but which are the rules of the society he lives in nevertheless. Seems to me that anyone who is prepared to be imprisoned over something like this is a bit loopy and, yes, pathetic. I wouldn't tell him to get a life because he already thinks he has one worth fighting for, but what a life to choose! I don't feel sorry for him. I don't think he's doing anything wrong in principle. I just think he's daft.

I agree, bags - you have to pick your fights so that you don't waste all your energy on less important things.
I think the 'Right to Roam' battle was worth fighting, but in this case he could just join a naturist club - some have quite a lot of land available.

Maybe we find nakedness and Islamic clothing [not sure of the correct term for that] because we tend to judge people on their appearance and the basis of the clothes they're wearing; therefore no clothes or identical clothes are threatening as we can't make an assumption about that person.

I think you're onto something there, crimson. My view is that this is how, as human beings, we recognise and communicate with each other (face language being as important as speech, and body language being as important as either, and so on), so I think we just have to accept that it's part of our lives to make 'judgements' about people based on their appearance. After all, tribal warfare is not so long ago in evolutionary terms (in fact, it's still going on in its primitive as well as its more 'sophisticated' forms) and being able to tell who is part of your group and who isn't was terribly important for survival. As the human world globalises and shrinks, as it were, mere survival isn't just what it's about, but you only have to think of peer group pressure to realise it's still psychologically important for us to communicate by way of dress and other 'superficial' things.

That's probably why my social life is well nigh non existent then....[better go to Dorothy Perkins with me credit card...]...

God help us if we can only communicate by dress and "other superficial things".

What happened to talking. And empathy?

I won't even mention compassion on here.

Well, we do, but have to overcome an initial reaction created by our appearance when we do speak. We can't judge everyone by them speaking to us because the majority of people don't speak to each other. And our survival as a species depends on making split second decisions about other creatures [including humans]. Haven't we all, when walking down a street crosed the road at some point in our lives when seeing someone in the distance who looks threatening? Or been surprised when we get into a conversation with someone and find them completely different to our initial view on them?

If I see someone who looks threatening, I stand up straight, try to look hefty, and smile at them.

I'm asking for trouble, aren't I?

What a picture that conjures up! I bet it works, jingl!

I did read that a woman walking alone at night is much safer if she walks in a purposeful sort of way [and in the daytime too, I guess]. I think eye contact is not a good idea . I now try to hobble in a purposeful way.....

crimson,

and sympathy, of course!

This chap has somehow manoeuvred himself into a situation with no solution. Just because his organ is not (usually) erect, doesn't mean that it should be on view to the public, any more than a woman should be doing knickerless handstands in the park or walking down the road topless. It is not in any way similar to the breast feeding debate – providing nourishment to an infant being the breasts' primary function. The penis is for peeing and copulation – neither of those being spectator activities in my opinion – nor is a flaccid penis an edifying sight.

Frankel I was definitely generalising and drawing on a stereotypical view of the sexes (stereotypes often have some truth in them).

Of course there are exceptions to any generalisation. However, Crimson's post is about women being safe to walk alone at night. Safe from whom we could ask ourselves?

Not a lot of advice to men on how to keep themselves safe from predatory women when walking home alone in the dark I notice.