Over the top on the Maasdam ..........

Eventually someone will push the issue and the Puritans will end up losing.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Eventually someone will push the issue and the Puritans will end up losing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Not as long as HAL maintains the policy. Their ship their rules.

Kudos to the crew and HAL for their responsiveness to passengers/guests.

Now I’m embarrassed for predicting that they would not engage themselves in a matter that might not often recur. :o

Eventually someone will push the issue and the Puritans will end up losing.

Let’s not put labels on each other.

:(

Is topless sunbathing allowed on your own balcony?

Can someone complain that by peering around the divider they could see someone?

This is just a general question. I burn easily so I won't be indulging.

The memo wording is imprecise. To me the memo says that topless sunbathing decks are not allowed on Holland America, not that topless sunbathing is not allowed.

Is topless sunbathing allowed on your own balcony?

Can someone complain that by peering around the divider they could see someone?

This is just a general question. I burn easily so I won't be indulging.

Do you assume you have a reasonable expectation of privacy on your own verandah (as long as the public glass elevators on some ships don't intrude on that view in those few cabins)? Would the person actively peering around your balcony partition have superior rights to your own expectation of balcony privacy? Your call.

In our own situation in one of the mini "aft wrap" balconies there was direct full view of the the public deck from our balcony that had been taken over by the topless female sun bathers. (10 loungers - up to 4 topless females) It took no effort to view this public aft deck from these particularly cabin balconies, as inaccurately claimed by a prior poster. The full aft public deck view was part of the package. We also knew others had a partial view of our "private" balcony from above, and we respected that accordingly.

The signs looked "old", kind of grimy on the edges and imprinting, which is why they looked so "official" when we later noticed them - Day Two.

 

We came down the aft deck stairs from Deck 10 and had the first encounter. I was immediately going to report this, but that is when we noticed the signs on the door leading back into the Deck 9 corridor leading to our cabin. Then when one became three, I wrote my comment card on Day Three - protesting the "new HAL policy" - assuming due to these signs this was now onboard policy.

 

So it did take until Day 15 for the HAL policy letter to go out. Report- investigate both signage issue and activity, check with HAL corporate, compose response to notice all passengers- response ...........now enforcement?

Somehow I had not caught that there were several signs involved. That alone would make it look more credible.

By the condition of them, it sounds like they may already have gotten a prior workout or 2.

I wonder if there will be an amendment to the KBYG or another item that will be on the screening list for entry to the Naughty Room.

It took no effort to view this public aft deck from these particularly cabin balconies, as inaccurately claimed by a prior poster.

Looks like there is some resolution for this "over the top" issue.

I hope HAL will do a better job in future of putting this apparent ban into words somewhere in their contract or pre-cruise information or -- basically anywhere since it isn't there now, so far as I've been able to tell.

And at some point, perhaps they will reconsider and perhaps HAL passengers won't freak out upon seeing a little nudity.

If you are referring to my post, I said it "appears". Did not realize you could see the topless sunbathers while seated, thank you for clarifying. Sounds like there is not much privacy on that aft wrap balcony.

You keep jumping to inaccurate conclusions. Hope you can try one of these cabins, so you can figure all of this out for yourself. This is an extended balcony, beyond the normal size which is private - then it extends to the end of the ship on that deck. That is the extra balcony area were you get the extra-sweeping views that on this trip were more than we had bargained for. And that is the area that is also partly in public view from above.

The one major drawback is the overhang is a semi-circle due to the upper deck design so you don't get full overhead coverage even for the normal width of the balcony and you get the deck pretty wet when they wash down the deck above. Also being on the far end of the ship it seems a lot more bumpy - more "shuddery" during certain sea and wind conditions for those who might worry about this. And it takes a long time for the hot water to get back here first in the morning too. But the views of the sea and horizon are wonderful from these cabins. That alone spoils one even more than a Neptune.

Looks like there is some resolution for this "over the top" issue.

 

I hope HAL will do a better job in future of putting this apparent ban into words somewhere in their contract or pre-cruise information or -- basically anywhere since it isn't there now, so far as I've been able to tell.

 

And at some point, perhaps they will reconsider and perhaps HAL passengers won't freak out upon seeing a little nudity.

Why are you asking passengers to forgive those who in this case aggressively, intentionally and with full pre-meditatation "broke the rules" in total disregard to everyone's sensibilities? It was far more of an offense than just the unwelcome nudity. There are so many other ways to getting to a win-win on this issue than unilaterally shoving bare breasts in other people's faces. They maliciously took over an entire public deck, along with materially impacting those two unique "aft-wrap" cabins on this ship. Why didn't they just ask upfront if they could arrange a mutually satisfactory location for their chosen personal agenda?

Here's the link to the sign i referenced before, deck 9 aft, Maasdam, June 2016.

 

Very interesting - such similar language. Wonder if there are some of the same passengers on that cruise, as we now have on ours.

Why are you asking passengers to forgive those who in this case aggressively, intentionally and with full pre-meditatation "broke the rules" in total disregard to everyone's sensibilities? It was far more of an offense than just the unwelcome nudity. There are so many other ways to getting to a win-win on this issue than unilaterally shoving bare breasts in other people's faces. They maliciously took over an entire public deck, along with materially impacting those two unique "aft-wrap" cabins on this ship. Why didn't they just ask upfront if they could arrange a mutually satisfactory location for their chosen personal agenda?

No need for the vituperative response. You are very fond of pointing out when others have jumped to conclusions or made wildly inaccurate representations. It would be great if you'd do the same.

Please show me where I mentioned the word "forgive"? Or where I ever indicated that I agreed with the (very odd and clearly NOT appropriate) placing of the fake signs? If there is any doubt, I do not.

I just think it would be a step forward should HAL decide, now (as I originally hoped) or in future, that this kind of activity is "no big deal" -- and by activity I mean the topless sunbathing itself, not placing fake signs.

I also think that, if this specific activity is not condoned by HAL and is in fact against HAL rules, it should be put into writing somewhere what the rule actually is. Especially if HAL is going to send out letters saying it's "not permitted on any Holland America Line ship."

Why are you asking passengers to forgive those who in this case aggressively, intentionally and with full pre-meditatation "broke the rules" in total disregard to everyone's sensibilities? It was far more of an offense than just the unwelcome nudity. There are so many other ways to getting to a win-win on this issue than unilaterally shoving bare breasts in other people's faces. They maliciously took over an entire public deck, along with materially impacting those two unique "aft-wrap" cabins on this ship. Why didn't they just ask upfront if they could arrange a mutually satisfactory location for their chosen personal agenda?

That is really too much. Have you not considered that those ladies may have seen the sign and quite innocently taken advantage of what appeared to be authorization ? You have not said that you know who posted the sign - presumably some trickster. Even if it was one of them, it could have been a thoughtful way to warn easily-offended people away from the unpleasant sight of an activity that does not seem to have been forbidden.

As for having to walk to an elevator instead of taking the outside stairs -- that's what the other 1257 passengers have to do. (And I've found that a lot of exercise is needed to offset those trips to the Lido.)

This is an interesting example of the effect of social media. One complainer draws the attention of a large group saying "who cares" - but the extent of the controversy pulls Authority into action counter to what seems to be the general opinion.

A bit of internet searching shows that in most states it has been established that exposure of the female chest is not per se illegal, but depends on the context. On the scale of offensiveness, I have seen Speedos by the Lido that certainly fall into that category - but I simply made a point of looking elsewhere. If there are going to be lounger-attire rules, they ought to apply to more than one body part and both genders.

The memo wording is imprecise. To me the memo says that topless sunbathing decks are not allowed on Holland America, not that topless sunbathing is not allowed.

I agree with you. To be pedantic about the wording of the circular, my interpretation of the circular is that it states that it is not permitted to allocate a deck for topless sunbathing and it does not say that topless sunbathing is not allowed.

I’m getting thread-fatigue, but...

It seems pretty simple to me. If it’s something you assume isn’t appropriate or allowed by the Lido pool, why would you think there it’s ok on some other deck? Answer: you wouldn’t.

There’s no need, IMO, for a cruise line to put in writing the rules about behavior which is not expected. To add it to the KBYG, or wherever, could lead some people to think that who-knows-what is condoned as long as it isn’t explicitly forbidden. Save the written rules for things that have more potential to occur.

Whether topless sunbathing is allowed is a primary question for many when choosing a resort. It's not unusual throughout the world to encounter topless women when visiting the beach. Unless specifically forbidden, then the sunbathers have an argument to make that it's allowed. Many cruiselines have an explicit policy you can find. No reason that HAL can not.

I think the real moral of the story is to not be passive-aggressive when faced with something that seems out of the ordinary. Tut-tutting on a card or online is not really the way to address a problem directly, at least initially.

Whether topless sunbathing is allowed is a primary question for many when choosing a resort. It's not unusual throughout the world to encounter topless women when visiting the beach. Unless specifically forbidden, then the sunbathers have an argument to make that it's allowed. Many cruiselines have an explicit policy you can find. No reason that HAL can not.

 

I think the real moral of the story is to not be passive-aggressive when faced with something that seems out of the ordinary. Tut-tutting on a card or online is not really the way to address a problem directly, at least initially.

Well said (y)

Maybe HAL would like to attract more families with children.

Why are you asking passengers to forgive those who in this case aggressively, intentionally and with full pre-meditatation "broke the rules" in total disregard to everyone's sensibilities? It was far more of an offense than just the unwelcome nudity. There are so many other ways to getting to a win-win on this issue than unilaterally shoving bare breasts in other people's faces. They maliciously took over an entire public deck, along with materially impacting those two unique "aft-wrap" cabins on this ship. Why didn't they just ask upfront if they could arrange a mutually satisfactory location for their chosen personal agenda?

“Aggressively”, Maliciously took over”, “broke the rules”

My question is whether you would book one of these cabins again?

It seems it has taken a lot of time from your vacation to resolve.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

That is really too much. Have you not considered that those ladies may have seen the sign and quite innocently taken advantage of what appeared to be authorization ? You have not said that you know who posted the sign - presumably some trickster. Even if it was one of them' date=' it could have been a thoughtful way to warn easily-offended people away from the unpleasant sight of an activity that does not seem to have been forbidden.

 

As for having to walk to an elevator instead of taking the outside stairs -- that's what the other 1257 passengers have to do. (And I've found that a lot of exercise is needed to offset those trips to the Lido.)

 

This is an interesting example of the effect of social media. One complainer draws the attention of a large group saying "who cares" - but the extent of the controversy pulls Authority into action counter to what seems to be the general opinion.

 

A bit of internet searching shows that in most states it has been established that exposure of the female chest is not per se illegal, but depends on the context. On the scale of offensiveness, I have seen Speedos by the Lido that certainly fall into that category - but I simply made a point of looking elsewhere. If there are going to be lounger-attire rules, they ought to apply to more than one body part and both genders.[/quote']

 

Ships are not democracies and you illustrate the enduring value of the secret ballot.

“Aggressively”, Maliciously took over”, “broke the rules”

 

My question is whether you would book one of these cabins again?

 

It seems it has taken a lot of time from your vacation to resolve.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

1. Yes, aggressively and maliciously broke the rules - posting the illegal signage and hijacking a public deck for private use

2. Yes, now that the policy is very clear I would book this cabin again.

3. No, two comment cards, and one follow-up with Guest Services - as well as sharing CC time.

With over 15,000 hits on this thread one has to wonder who is spending most of their time on this topic.

1. Yes, aggressively and maliciously broke the rules - posting the illegal signage and hijacking a public deck for private use

2. Yes, now that the policy is very clear I would book this cabin again.

3. No, two comment cards, and one follow-up with Guest Services - as well as sharing CC time.

 

With over 15,000 hits on this thread one has to wonder who is spending most of their time on this topic.

Technically, without a written, publicly available policy, one can only say that they aggressively and maliciously broke the rules, once they had been informed. Since you have not mentioned another instance since the letter was sent providing such notice, one must conclude the behavior stopped and as such their rule breaking was not malicious nor aggressive.

The problem might have been resolved earlier by an immediate call to customer service, instead of initially using the comment card.

Ships are not democracies and you illustrate the enduring value of the secret ballot.

Both true, but pointless. Since ships are not democracies, ballots are irrelevant.

Ship operators rely on polls, focus groups, and marketing results. They evaluate the number of customers they might gain versus the number they might lose. For example, smoking aboard has persisted long after it would probably have been voted off, but is finally being phased out as sentiment shifts.