[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ducay

While I couldn't care less about what rules they have or don't have, given zero chance of me attending, however.... again, the irony is having discriminatory policies while professing to act in a completely inclusive manner which the event is based on, that just so happens to be totally opposite to their stated nature and goals of inclusivity.

Of course it is a private group open to enforce whatever rules they want. They could ban whoever they want for whatever reason, but acting like they are trying to knock down societal borders while offering rights to different groups based solely on those preconceived borders is pretty laughable. Pretty much summarizes the modern approach quite well. Be inclusive as long as it suits your needs.

Here’s a Corsi-length post just to put whatever point you’re scrambling to make to bed:

1. I get that you’re using this as an excuse to rail against modern society and equality. The problem is, you’re placing the onus of all inclusivity on them, when they don’t position themselves as being inclusive in the first place. Their main tenants are related to body positivity, regardless of what that body is. It’s not about equal rights or equal treatment, it’s about feeling comfortable in a state of dress that is less-so than what you can normally experience in public. For men, that’s fully naked, for women, that’s at least topless. Makes sense? Great.

2. Again, since their stated nature and goals are not inclusivity (as you stated), but body positivity, your entire premise is an obviously misguided attempt at being whatever the social conservative version of an SJW is (which seems to be be often for you, just from my observation). This is further evidenced by you bringing up the Pride Parade, which in purpose, format, and history has so little to do with this event that it boils down to either A) a monumental stretch spurred on by a need to shoehorn in a debate that doesn’t belong B) a total misunderstanding of both events. B is more likely, as you state “but acting like they are trying to knock down societal borders while offering rights to different groups based solely on those preconceived borders is pretty laughable,” which in itself is laughable, because the societal borders they are very specifically referring to are the ones against nudity, not the ones about male/female equality. There are plenty of societal borders, did you think they were trying to address all of them? Lol!

3. The last, super obvious point where you’re clearly misunderstanding what you’re reading, or lying about what the statements are to push whatever confusing agenda, is this:

It's not just the mandate that men be nude and women don't have to, but also:

Rule #1: If either a woman or a lifeguard reports an issue regarding your conduct you will be immediately escorted out. You will have NO chance to plead your case or explain yourself.

That’s an interesting quote, since you must have gotten it from the website. So why did you omit the actual rule #1 and substitute the clarification put in afterwards?

Here’s the actual rule (and the part you edited to make it seem like Rule #1 was different):

1. Respect of all persons attending is required at all times. At no time is it acceptable to negatively impact someone’s experience by actions, words, or staring. If someone else feels uncomfortable or feels that their safety is compromised because of your actions, words, or staring, you are in violation of rule #1. Your intentions are irrelevant to the safety and comfort of others.

... (an aside posted after the rules
To be really clear on Rule #1: If either a woman or a lifeguard reports an issue regarding your conduct you will be immediately escorted out. You will have NO chance to plead your case or explain yourself.

It’s pretty clear that Rule #1 is non-discriminatory. It’s also clear that clarification was provided for a group of people that needed some clarification. Perhaps there have been previous problems, perhaps men seem to take the rule different and need the clarification. You’re not a member or an organiser, so how would you know?

It’s just very bizarre that someone would misquote and misrepresent the rules and purpose of a nudist group to shoehorn in some weird narrative about how it all ties into “modern” equality and the pride parade. All while starting it by pretending they actually care about that equality in the first place, and later coming out stating that they don’t.

It’s a private nudist event, not an equal rights march. Just weird lol.