U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida > Tampa Bay
 [Register]
Tampa Bay Tampa - St. Petersburg - Clearwater
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you have a problem if they designated a SECTION of Ft Desoto to clothing optional sunbathing?
Male - No Problem at all, and I would visit! 107 43.15%
Male - No Problem at all, I would not visit 31 12.50%
Male - there should be no nudity on Pinellas Beaches 25 10.08%
Male - Other 1 0.40%
Female - No Problem at all, and I would visit! 31 12.50%
Female - No Problem at all, I would not visit 27 10.89%
Female - there should be no nudity on Pinellas Beaches 22 8.87%
Female - Other 4 1.61%
Voters: 248. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-21-2009, 02:54 PM
 
5,453 posts, read 7,754,913 times
Reputation: 2141

Advertisements

You know what...I fail to understand why would anyone want to stare or be in the presence of someone they DON'T KNOW that's naked? with 60% of the US population overweight and obese, I would find this absolutely disgusting! and really can't see the purpose of this!?

I am sure that some "smart Alec" would manage to bring a kid there which would make this twice as gross and inappropriate!

Why can't we leave things alone?

Fort DeSoto is a State Park....why in the world would anyone want to put a nudist beach there? I think we have enough nudist colonies as it is! How about more quality theater or our own Ballet company? local...????..........seriously!

 
Old 07-24-2009, 04:42 AM
 
Location: Pinellas Park, FL
648 posts, read 1,491,314 times
Reputation: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalblue View Post
nah.

why should they get all the fun?

They aren't getting any fun but mostly naked old people from what I have been hearing about them. I don't see that as fun at all.
 
Old 04-22-2010, 06:59 PM
 
25 posts, read 138,905 times
Reputation: 35
I haven't read all the posts, but I want to chime in. And it seems there hasn't been much activity on here for a while, but nevertheless:

1.Ft Desoto is a county park, not state or anything else.

2.there are no private beaches in Florida. all land bordering navigable water up to the mean high water line is public property. there may be some grandfathered in exceptions here and there around the state, but I don't know of any, and there are none anywhere around Tampa bay. so, if there's going to be a nude beach, it has to be on what's presently a public beach.

3. Ft Desoto has several miles of gulf-front beach; I'd guess at least 4, maybe 5 or more. no one is suggesting making all that beach, much less the whole park, clothing optional. the general idea is for 200-400 yards or so at the north end of the strip of beach north of the fort and south of the lagoon; i.e. south of north beach. you can't walk through there to get somewhere else. the nearest parking lot to the south (near the fort) is at least a mile, probably 2. the parking lot to the north is a long walk as well, on the paved bike path and then through the dunes. there's no approach along the beach from the north, because of the lagoon and lagoon inlet. approaching from the south, from the direction of the fort, the beach dead ends at the lagoon inlet. in other words, if the co beach were marked, as it of course would be, no one could go there by accident, and no one would have to go around it to get somewhere else. all it would mean is that someone walking from the south would have to turn around and go back the way they came 200-400 yards before they otherwise would have had to anyway.

4. there's no connection between properly managed and supervised nudism, on one hand, and strip clubs, swingers, wet t-shirt contests, porn etc., on the other. sexual activity would be just as illegal if the beach were legally co as it is now, and, as at haulover, you would have a dedicated corps of volunteers working to assist the police to make sure it stayed that way. among other things, one difference is commercialism versus non-commercialism, and that makes all the difference in the world.

5. there are about 850k people in pinellas and a little more in hillsborough. add in pasco, polk, manatee and sarasota, all within an hour's drive of ft d, and there's surely more than 2 mil people in the area, probably closer to 3 mil, maybe more. that we don't have a legal public co beach anywhere around is an embarrassment. it makes us look like a bunch of backwards provincials and bible-belt hillbillies. a co beach would be a major positive to our image and tourism, especially to the kind of people we really want to attract. the people who wouldn't come here because one tiny, tiny corner of this huge, 2-3 million population metropolitan area has a legal co beach are the people we don't want here anyway, and have way too many of already.

6. specifically as to ft d, with a little investment, a segregated paid parking lot could be dedicated to the co beach, and raise a lot of much-needed revenue for the park and the county. there's a surplus of parking at ft d as it is. no one would miss it. there'd still be plenty of free parking for the 95% of the beach that would remain non-clothing optional.

7. as someone else pointed out, there is no shortage of people who are old, or fat, or unattractive, or any combination of the three, wearing swim suits on our beaches now. the absence of swim suits would rarely, if ever, make any of these folks more unattractive, and in my opinion often helps a little. which is not to concede that one person's disapproval of another's physical appearance is a valid basis for public policy. it's not. if it were, well, let's just say a substantial proportion of our population would be in big trouble.

8. on the related point of whether attractive people would go there, i will say I have seen many fit and attractive naked people at Haulover in Miami. Again, compared to a regular beach, I'd say the overall attractiveness at Haulover is higher, not lower. Sure, a crowd of drunk 20-something spring breakers at a beach bar in Clearwater or Daytona or Pensacola, gyrating lewdly, flashing their t**ts, and getting into fist-fights, is going to be much, much higher in the raw physical attractiveness department than the patrons of Haulover or a co beach at ft d. But, I trust we'll all agree that is at least no more a "family-friendly" scenario than a bunch of grown-ups quietly enjoying the peace and beauty of ft desoto park, even with their boobies, weenies and hoohahs exposed.

so, as is clear, I think a co beach in Pinellas county, especially at ft Desoto park, would be great, and is in fact way overdue. I'd be there as often as I could.

[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
 
Old 04-23-2010, 05:50 AM
 
5,453 posts, read 7,754,913 times
Reputation: 2141
You must be kidding! cause THAT'S what we need indeed!


Quote:
Originally Posted by jinstpete View Post
I haven't read all the posts, but I want to chime in. And it seems there hasn't been much activity on here for a while, but nevertheless:

1.Ft Desoto is a county park, not state or anything else.

2.there are no private beaches in Florida. all land bordering navigable water up to the mean high water line is public property. there may be some grandfathered in exceptions here and there around the state, but I don't know of any, and there are none anywhere around Tampa bay. so, if there's going to be a nude beach, it has to be on what's presently a public beach.

3. Ft Desoto has several miles of gulf-front beach; I'd guess at least 4, maybe 5 or more. no one is suggesting making all that beach, much less the whole park, clothing optional. the general idea is for 200-400 yards or so at the north end of the strip of beach north of the fort and south of the lagoon; i.e. south of north beach. you can't walk through there to get somewhere else. the nearest parking lot to the south (near the fort) is at least a mile, probably 2. the parking lot to the north is a long walk as well, on the paved bike path and then through the dunes. there's no approach along the beach from the north, because of the lagoon and lagoon inlet. approaching from the south, from the direction of the fort, the beach dead ends at the lagoon inlet. in other words, if the co beach were marked, as it of course would be, no one could go there by accident, and no one would have to go around it to get somewhere else. all it would mean is that someone walking from the south would have to turn around and go back the way they came 200-400 yards before they otherwise would have had to anyway.

4. there's no connection between properly managed and supervised nudism, on one hand, and strip clubs, swingers, wet t-shirt contests, porn etc., on the other. sexual activity would be just as illegal if the beach were legally co as it is now, and, as at haulover, you would have a dedicated corps of volunteers working to assist the police to make sure it stayed that way. among other things, one difference is commercialism versus non-commercialism, and that makes all the difference in the world.

5. there are about 850k people in pinellas and a little more in hillsborough. add in pasco, polk, manatee and sarasota, all within an hour's drive of ft d, and there's surely more than 2 mil people in the area, probably closer to 3 mil, maybe more. that we don't have a legal public co beach anywhere around is an embarrassment. it makes us look like a bunch of backwards provincials and bible-belt hillbillies. a co beach would be a major positive to our image and tourism, especially to the kind of people we really want to attract. the people who wouldn't come here because one tiny, tiny corner of this huge, 2-3 million population metropolitan area has a legal co beach are the people we don't want here anyway, and have way too many of already.

6. specifically as to ft d, with a little investment, a segregated paid parking lot could be dedicated to the co beach, and raise a lot of much-needed revenue for the park and the county. there's a surplus of parking at ft d as it is. no one would miss it. there'd still be plenty of free parking for the 95% of the beach that would remain non-clothing optional.

7. as someone else pointed out, there is no shortage of people who are old, or fat, or unattractive, or any combination of the three, wearing swim suits on our beaches now. the absence of swim suits would rarely, if ever, make any of these folks more unattractive, and in my opinion often helps a little. which is not to concede that one person's disapproval of another's physical appearance is a valid basis for public policy. it's not. if it were, well, let's just say a substantial proportion of our population would be in big trouble.

8. on the related point of whether attractive people would go there, i will say I have seen many fit and attractive naked people at Haulover in Miami. Again, compared to a regular beach, I'd say the overall attractiveness at Haulover is higher, not lower. Sure, a crowd of drunk 20-something spring breakers at a beach bar in Clearwater or Daytona or Pensacola, gyrating lewdly, flashing their t**ts, and getting into fist-fights, is going to be much, much higher in the raw physical attractiveness department than the patrons of Haulover or a co beach at ft d. But, I trust we'll all agree that is at least no more a "family-friendly" scenario than a bunch of grown-ups quietly enjoying the peace and beauty of ft desoto park, even with their boobies, weenies and hoohahs exposed.

so, as is clear, I think a co beach in Pinellas county, especially at ft Desoto park, would be great, and is in fact way overdue. I'd be there as often as I could.

[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
 
Old 04-23-2010, 06:11 AM
 
Location: Lincoln County Road or Armageddon
4,224 posts, read 5,676,244 times
Reputation: 5775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue's Love View Post
They aren't getting any fun but mostly naked old people from what I have been hearing about them. I don't see that as fun at all.
When I was younger, I had a job delivering building supplies. One of my deliveries was at a nudist club in Pasco. I'm imagining young, model-like residents prancing around naked and readily accepted the task. The reality couldn't have been further away from what I was hoping for. Nothing says gross out like hundreds of older people with nothing on but flip flops. I couldn't get out of there fast enough.
I have several friends who call themselves "nudists" and would love to see a nude beach at Ft. Desoto. Again, these are folks well into their 50s. I have yet to know of anyone who is even remotely attractive claim to be a nudist-all the nudists I've come in contact with should be wearing MORE clothes, not less.
 
Old 04-23-2010, 07:22 AM
 
5,453 posts, read 7,754,913 times
Reputation: 2141
look at the stats above, no wonder we have more sex offenders here that birds and wildlife all together!!!!!!!!
 
Old 04-23-2010, 07:24 AM
 
25 posts, read 138,905 times
Reputation: 35
algia-i honestly can't figureout if you agree or disagree with me.

again, why would anyone think the attractiveness of the people who go there is even a consideration? if it is, why aren't you trying to outlaw wal-mart? have seen the patrons there?

and, i hope we can agree, the fact that a legal nude beach would not be some sort of sex fest, with nubile young chicks and dudes cavorting about exhibiting themselves and engaging sex acts, is really a positive, for those who are concerned about the moral aspects of public nudity. in other words, if you don't find the people who go to a nude beach sexually attractive, then why do you care? you go to the mall and the supermarket and walk down the street every day with scads of unattractive people. what skin is it off of your nose? it's easy to deal with, just don't go.

although, like i said, if you've ever been to haulover, you'll see no shortage of hotties. and there are plenty of very fit and attractive people at the pasco resorts too. yes, there are plenty of old/fat/unattractive people, just like on a clothed beach. but who cares? just don't look at them. i must have some sort of selective vision, because when i am at haulover or the pasco resorts, i hardly even notice them; i guess my brain just automatically screens for the naked babes. if you see a dozen gold coins mixed up in a bucket of mud, do you throw it out because the mud disgusts you? personally, i don't even notice the mud.
 
Old 04-23-2010, 07:44 AM
 
5,453 posts, read 7,754,913 times
Reputation: 2141
I don't agree, I don't see the purpose at all.....and @ Ft De Soto even less.

You know, in Europe we do have designated beaches for nudists, however, most of them are for therapeutic purposes, there is this mud they rub all over themselves and it supposed to really help with rheumatism. That I can understand, they are very isolated and ppl are covered with that mud stuff.
However I think HERE this will be HIGHLY ABUSED, especially in Florida/Tampa with all the sex-offenders around. I also think unless this is privately funded by some pervert who wants to assume responsibility for the "peep hole" ppl who WILL be present.......I don't think any gov budget/city money should go into this. It would be a WASTE.


now THAT we can agree on:
"why aren't you trying to outlaw wal-mart?"

Hard not too, they are blocking my view! lololololol
"just like on a clothed beach. but who cares? just don't look at them"
 
Old 04-23-2010, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Lincoln County Road or Armageddon
4,224 posts, read 5,676,244 times
Reputation: 5775
Some one wants a nude beach, let them buy their own. I don't need my tax dollars going towards a bunch of land whales that for some reason known only to them, feel the need to be naked in public. Please, Tampa Bay is trashy enough without nude beaches. Have some consideration for those of us who don't want to be exposed to your overweight, droopy body parts.
 
Old 04-23-2010, 09:50 AM
 
25 posts, read 138,905 times
Reputation: 35
if either of you didnt't want to see any naked people, fit or fat, it's easy enough just to not go to the nude beach.

"just like on a clothed beach. but who cares? just don't look at them"
"Hard not too, they are blocking my view! lololololol"
only if you go out of your way to go to the nude beach, and then only if you sit next to naked people, and then there's only a difference form a regular beach if you stare at their genitals. do you stare at the genital area of fat unattractive people in bathing suits? i assume not. then if you're not going to stare at the genitals of naked fat unattractive people, then what's the difference?

although i don't think some sort of aesthetic objection is the real reason for this line of argument; i think your real point is to insult and ridicule people who are nudists or support nudism.

and, as i said above, it's impossible to have a private beach in florida. all beaches are public.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida > Tampa Bay
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top