Raw deal?

This week’s Stranger gives another mention to a West Seattle mini-controversy that got surprisingly little attention earlier this spring (we only linked to it in passing): the city’s decision to deny a nudist group’s request to rent Colman Pool for a swimsuitless swim. At least The Stranger mentioned the group by name (Body Freedom Collaborative, site NSFW); the original account didn’t. So do you think the city should have said yes? (We can’t help thinking they would have been able to handle it by charging extra to put the plywood back up for a few hours.)

Jan June 7, 2007 (10:34 pm)

interesting website. I have to say I have absolutely nothing against nudity…..and, yes, I think your plywood solution would have been the perfect answer. I do get the feeling though that this group would have protested that, because it’s not done for any other group.

Interesting that there are only under 50 (or so it seems), and thinner, people in their website pictures…maybe I just haven’t looked far enough for the over 50, paunchy crowd :)

I do know, though, that I’m not one for going out playing in the snow au natural…brrrrrr…..

Steve E. June 7, 2007 (10:35 pm)

Even with the plywood up, you never know which new photos Google Earth will use.

Jan June 7, 2007 (11:07 pm)

lol..Steve…that’s true…and I suppose that if you stand on the hill above the poolstrategically, you could even get closer pics, if that’s your thing…:)

flipjack June 9, 2007 (10:00 am)

I really don’t see a problem with it. It’s good for people to see each other naked in a non-sexual way. I’m not a”nudist” but hell I don’t care if someone sees me in my birthday suit, just ask my neighbors.

Sorry, comment time is over.