Greenlake Walking

Hover and/or click on an image to learn more!

Comments may be made here on a variety of stories, topics, photos and posts. If there is doubt about what you are commenting upon, consider making it clear . . .

david and girl 	

Since July 2012 I have walked at Greenlake with a free hugs sign.

Here is a young miss and myself at the East Greenlake beach. She wished to hug me and do a few photos while I was on a clothed walk in July 2014, if I recall the month correctly. There are many gals who have had photos taken with me, on days I was clothed or in undies.

By clothed walk I mean that I was wearing pants and a shirt or something similar. In about August 2012, I began to experiment with wearing undies or dual-use (undies and/or swimwear use) items while walking.

If I had been wearing undies and a shirt that day, would this young lady have chosen to hug me?

We don't know, but many persons do. Usually it is those older than 13 or 14, though on one day in October 2014 I had requests to hug (while I was in a thong) from grade-schoolers! It was hard to believe at first, but it seems pretty clear that they were at peace and I think they were serious! I only waved at them, but if I had to do it over again, I would have offered to hug, by opening my arms.

Usually persons of grade school age, if they are in the presence of parents, address their questions or comments to the parents. In that case (10/18/14), there were 9 kids and one fellow who seemed to be with some of them . . . and perhaps the kids who were not his felt free to speak up!

In July 2013, I had one experience one day in which young ladies did side-hugging with me and photos, and they did not realize I was in a shirt and no pants (undies, yes) till afterwards! If one wears undies rather than pants or shorts, people still hug you or wish to hug you, but the numbers are slightly fewer.

Do not abduct!

couple asking to 
			take david's photo

Here I am with two persons in October 2013. I assume that they are husband and wife.

The wife is cheerfully asking about taking photos of me. Just after this instant, she took one or more photos of me. In this photo, I was in a Brazilian, which is the type I wore for most walks in 2013.

Given the combination of this shirt and the Brazilian, it appears to be next to nothing, but if I had been wearing no shirt, then, when viewed from behind, it would be the similar to what one might see on some portion (2-25%) of the gals (and some teens) in bikinis who are sunbathing or swimming at Greenlake.

Various gals, but probably not a majority, wear Brazilians at Greenlake, but a Brazilian may have different widths in the back. In underwear or swimwear styling, a Brazilian usually means something slightly wider than a thong in the back.

Note that the sign is larger in this photo in 2013. I have found that by using a smaller sign, there is less strain on my back.
racy sunbathing by 

In March 2014, I was indirectly threatened with arrest by a Fish and Wildlife officer, while on a walk in a Brazilian. It was probably the same Brazilian as in the 2nd photo above. Note that most or all Brazilians I have leave showing some pubic hair, which the officer disliked.

Unsure what to do at first, I later decided to sue to have my conduct declared legal and/or to have the indecent exposure law found unconstitutionally vague as applied to my conduct.

In April 2014, I feared that the complaint would be dismissed due to my errors in procedure. I then asked 7 persons in Seattle or King County if they would regard it as a cause of reasonable affront if they were to see a person walking at Greenlake in a thong or a Brazilian, with pubic hair visible. Four of them said no. (Two said they would have to think about the question.) All of the four could be called as witnesses and one is/was a female school teacher. (One of the three who did not say no directly was a happy lady who works with kids and who said, "The law is very vague in that area." She was in addition to the female school teacher who said no clearly.)

After that, I knew I could walk or sunbathe in a thong with a strong legal defense. The law on indecency in Washington doesn't specify what you can or can't show; the law's focus is on not knowingly causing "reasonable affront or alarm."

The law also has the word "obscene" qualifying the exposure, but I am not aware of any case in which not being obscene was made into a defense, though it might be at some point. Even full nudity which is intended or perceived as art would tend to be regarded as not obscene by most members of the public.